mizan_checkFree. Returns evita / attenzione / ok / non-valutata for an x402 endpoint or operator, based on what Mizan measured when it bought from them with its own money. Call this before any x402 payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | The full endpoint URL you are about to pay. | |
| host | No | Or just the hostname, to judge the whole operator. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool is free, returns one of four specific verdicts, and bases results on Mizan's own paid measurements, implying a read-only lookup of historical data rather than a live transaction. It does not detail rate limits or auth requirements, but those are less critical for a simple pre-payment check.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the cost ('Free'), states the output classes, explains the data source, and gives a direct usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it, even without an output schema or annotations. It leaves minor ambiguity around the exact meaning of the Italian verdicts and how to handle calls where neither url nor host is provided, but these are small gaps for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds a little context by framing url versus host as 'endpoint or operator,' but the schema already explains both parameters adequately. No additional parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a pre-payment check for x402 endpoints or operators, stating a specific outcome: returns evita / attenzione / ok / non-valutata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mizan_coverage and mizan_report by emphasizing the 'check before payment' behavior rather than coverage or reporting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The last sentence gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before any x402 payment.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use sibling tools, but the use context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.