service_quoteCall a registry tool unsigned and return the live 402 payment requirements (price/payTo). Public — no key needed. Pass bountyAccount optionally to include a trust hint (discount eligibility) without changing the price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | Tool name on that service | |
| serviceId | Yes | Registry service id (from list_services) | |
| bountyAccount | No | BSVBounties account # for trust hint |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / bountyAccountAdded value: +{
+ "description": "BSVBounties account # for trust hint",
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful context: unsigned call, returns live 402 payment requirements, public/no key required, and bountyAccount is a hint that doesn't alter price. It doesn't disclose rate limits, error conditions, or what the response body looks like beyond price/payTo.
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, front-loaded with the core action and outputs, then optional parameter note. No filler, though the parenthetical (price/payTo) is a bit dense.
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 read-only quote tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics: unsigned call, live 402 requirements, public access, and optional trust hint. It lacks some details like error handling or whether the response is JSON, but is largely 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds only marginal meaning: that bountyAccount is optional and a trust hint affecting discount eligibility without changing the price. This clarifies behavior of a parameter but does not add syntax or format 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 states a specific action (call a registry tool unsigned, return the 402 payment requirements) with concrete outputs (price/payTo). It somewhat distinguishes itself from pay_service by the word 'unsigned' and 'quote', but doesn't explicitly name the alternative or state that it doesn't execute payment.
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?
Implies usage by saying it's public and doesn't need a key, and that bountyAccount is optional for a discount hint. However, it doesn't state when to prefer this over pay_service or whether to call it before paying.
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.