List the live, pay-per-call XRP data endpoints (x402 on the XRP Ledger, 0.0001-0.05 XRP per call) and how an agent pays for them.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "xrp_paid_endpoints"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses the payment model and price range (0.0001-0.05 XRP per call) plus the underlying protocol. It does not say whether calling this listing tool itself is free, whether a wallet or auth is needed, or what the response looks like, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the resource and folds protocol, ledger, and price range in without filler. Every clause 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?
For a zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is listed and how payment works, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits the return shape and any preconditions for consuming the listed endpoints, but those are minor for a catalog listing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. No parameter-level claims are made that could conflict with 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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (live, pay-per-call XRP data endpoints) and names the protocol (x402 on the XRP Ledger), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like x402_doctor or xrp_brief_sample, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite four siblings that could plausibly overlap (e.g. x402_doctor for payment diagnostics). The discovery intent is only implied by the word 'List'.
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.