Loading ToolBench
MCP server for discovering and interacting with x402-enabled machine-payable services from the Coinbase Bazaar
The server defines 2 tools with clear naming conventions and input schemas. Both tools follow verb_noun pattern (list-*, inspect-*). Schemas are visible and properly typed. However, descriptions lack depth for LLM selection guidance, parameters could be more constrained, and output schemas are not documented. Error handling and recovery guidance are absent. Baseline: average param description length is 72 chars; these are ~50-60 chars, below median. Tool descriptions (48-57 chars) are within baseline but lack WHEN/WHY context that LLMs need for tool selection.
Retrieve full metadata for a specific Bazaar service by resource URL.
Fetch discoverable x402 services from the Bazaar with optional filters.
Output schema not documented. No documented return type structure for either tool. LLMs cannot plan downstream tool calls or extract nested fields without knowing what fields will be present in responses.
Tool descriptions lack WHEN/WHY guidance. 'Fetch discoverable x402 services from the Bazaar with optional filters' tells what it does but not when an LLM should choose this tool over alternatives, what the response structure is, or any prerequisites. LLMs cannot reliably select tools without this context.
Parameter descriptions are generic and lack format/constraint details. 'Optional network name to filter accepted payments (e.g., base)' includes an example value; LLMs may reuse 'base' literally rather than adapting to actual networks. Missing enum constraint or list of valid values. Same pattern in 'maxAtomicPrice' and 'limit' parameters.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | C | 63 | 2025-06-18+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 0 | - | v1 |
No pagination guidance or result limits documented. 'Limit the number of results returned (default: all)' suggests unbounded results are possible. Without documented limits, LLMs may request thousands of items, exhausting context windows. Pattern baseline recommends 20-50 item caps with pagination support.
No error handling or recovery guidance. No indication of what errors are retryable, user-fixable, or fatal. No guidance for LLM on next steps if service lookup fails or resource URL is invalid.
Parameter names not sufficiently specific for intent clarity. 'network' and 'asset' are somewhat ambiguous without examples or enums. A 'status' parameter could mean HTTP status, resource status, or boolean state. Current descriptions partially disambiguate but lack constraints.