Register the on-chain address this account controls on a network. Withdrawals are sent there, and an x402 payment credits this account only when it was signed by this address — a payment header alone proves nothing, so a stolen one cannot be redirected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| network | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: this action is critical for payment security, and a payment header alone is insufficient for proof. It explains the consequence of not using this properly (stolen headers cannot be redirected), which is valuable behavioral context.
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 a single sentence, but it packs in purpose and security context. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It could be slightly more concise, but every part earns its place for clarity.
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?
Given the complexity of the tool (4 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the purpose and importance. It does not explain parameter formats, but the tool seems straightforward. It is missing details on return values, but no output schema exists, so the description must do that work. It covers the critical points.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain each parameter (owner, address, network, asset), but the description mentions 'network' and 'address' indirectly. It does not clarify the meaning of 'owner' or 'asset'. Since the schema has no descriptions, a baseline of 3 is given, but this could be improved by explicitly mapping parameters.
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 verb 'Register' and the resource 'on-chain address', and explains the purpose: withdrawals are sent there. It distinguishes this from related actions like 'bind_key', 'deposit_address', and 'wallet_balance' by focusing on address registration for payouts.
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 description implies usage context: it should be used to set the destination for withdrawals and to authenticate x402 payments. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the focus on security properties gives some guidance.
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.