Monitor registry changes in real-time with x402 M2M API. Signed x402 call. 0.03 USDC on Base. [x402: 0.03 USDC per call on Base]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | product parameters (JSON or text). Example: {"input": "latest"} |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / input / descriptionPrevious value: -"product parameters (JSON or text). Example: {\"input\": \"0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000\"}"New value: +"product parameters (JSON or text). Example: {\"input\": \"latest\"}"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it is a signed x402 M2M API call costing 0.03 USDC on Base, which tells the agent about payment requirements and cost before invoking. This is meaningful operational information.
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 short and front-loads the purpose, but the payment cost is redundantly stated twice: once as '0.03 USDC on Base' and again in the bracketed '[x402: 0.03 USDC per call on Base]'. This repetition wastes space without adding information.
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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'registry' refers to and what kind of changes are monitored. It fails to do so, leaving the agent unable to understand the tool's scope or expected return. The payment context is present, but the core monitoring context is missing.
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 100%, so the schema itself documents the single 'input' parameter. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what values are valid, what 'latest' means), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.
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 clear verb ('Monitor') and a resource ('registry changes'), but 'registry' is ambiguous — it could mean a DNS registry, package registry, or product registry. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like dnsdomain or port_watch, leaving the agent unsure what exactly is being monitored.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The only contextual cue is the payment cost, which does not help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.
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.