[PAID $0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Round-trip liveness probe on the hub itself: pong, server receive time and measured latency.
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": "util_ping"
}
}| 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 delivers the most decision-relevant behavior: the call costs $0.002 USDC per invocation via x402 on eip155:8453. That payment/chain context is exactly what annotations would otherwise be needed for. It stops short of stating failure semantics (whether a failed probe is still charged), rate limits, or payment prerequisites, so it is not fully complete.
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, with the cost/payment metadata bracketed up front and the behavior immediately after. Every clause earns its place; the bracketed tag is dense but informative rather than filler.
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 simple, zero-parameter probe with no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: what it checks, what the response contains, and what it costs. The main remaining gap is error/failure behavior, which matters for a paid call but is not addressed.
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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is empty and consistent with the described behavior.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Round-trip liveness probe on the hub itself") and lists what comes back (pong, server receive time, measured latency), so an agent knows this is a self-test of the hub, not an external endpoint check. It doesn't explicitly name mcp_probe or x402_probe as the alternatives, so differentiation is implied by "on the hub itself" rather than stated.
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?
Usage is implied: this is a connectivity/liveness check, useful before or after other calls. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to the closely named siblings mcp_probe and x402_probe, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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.