[x402] Formatted settlement receipt for a Base transaction (0x hash) or Solana settlement (base58 signature): timestamp, decoded transfers, explorer link. Costs $0.002. Choose this for a human-readable record; use payment_proof to ASSERT a specific payTo/amount, or settlement_assurance for a full scored verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | 0x Base tx hash or base58 Solana signature |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses cost ($0.002) and implies read-only behavior. Without annotations, more detail on caching or rate limits would improve, but the cost disclosure adds value beyond the name.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. First sentence states core functionality and cost; second gives usage guidance. Highly efficient.
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?
Explains output contents despite no output schema. Could mention error cases, but for a simple receipt tool it's sufficiently complete.
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 has 100% coverage with a good description. The tool description reiterates the input format but adds little extra meaning beyond the schema.
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 states the tool produces a 'Formatted settlement receipt' with specific contents: timestamp, decoded transfers, explorer link. It distinguishes input types for Base and Solana, making the purpose very specific.
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?
Explicitly guides when to use this tool ('human-readable record') and contrasts with siblings payment_proof and settlement_assurance, providing clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple x402 transaction verification tools (payment_proof, settlement_assurance, tx_status) and multiple summarization tools (summarize_url, tldr_text). However, descriptions provide enough detail to differentiate them, though an agent could still be confused.
Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun patterns (e.g., summarize_url, generate_uuid) with noun phrases (e.g., base64, dns_lookup) and inconsistent prefixes (e.g., base_token_info vs base_allowance vs base64). The x402_* group is consistent, but overall naming lacks a unified pattern.
With 49 tools, the server is very heavy. While it aims to be a broad utility server, this number exceeds typical well-scoped servers (3-15 tools) and risks being overwhelming for agents, especially given the mix of unrelated domains.
The server covers a wide range of utilities (crypto, AI, web, dev, x402 payments) but lacks depth in any single area. For instance, there are many read-only tools but few state-changing operations beyond x402. Gaps like file handling or database access are expected given its scope.