Return step-by-step instructions for setting up x402 USDC autopay for this MCP server. Use this if a paid tool returned a 402 error or you're onboarding a new agent that needs to pay for API calls. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states it returns instructions and is free. No hidden side effects; behavior is straightforward for a guidance tool.
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 wasted words. Front-loaded with core function and usage context.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete guidance for an agent to use the tool appropriately.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage; description adds no parameter info as none needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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?
Description specifies the verb 'return' and the resource 'step-by-step instructions for setting up x402 USDC autopay', clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on payment setup, not installation or listing.
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 states when to use: 'if a paid tool returned a 402 error or you're onboarding a new agent'. Also marks as 'Free', guiding cost-avoidance.
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.
list_endpoints and pricing_info overlap heavily—both surface pricing information, and an agent could easily pick the wrong one. The other three tools are more distinct, but this pair introduces real ambiguity.
The naming is readable but mixes styles: install_snippets and list_endpoints follow a verb_noun pattern, while pricing_info, usage_stats, and wallet_helper are noun-heavy labels. No chaotic mixing, but no strong consistent convention.
Five tools is a reasonable number for a small gateway server, and none feel entirely superfluous. There is minor redundancy between the two pricing-related tools, but the overall count is well-scoped.
The server describes itself as a gateway to paid endpoints, yet provides no tool to actually call any paid endpoint—only meta helpers for installation, discovery, pricing, usage, and wallet setup. This leaves agents unable to perform the server's core function.