[PAID $0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Authoritative UTC server time: unix seconds, milliseconds and ISO 8601, for agents that must timestamp without trusting their host clock.
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_time"
}
}| 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 behavioral burden. It does add valuable context beyond the schema: the call is metered ($0.002 USDC, x402, eip155:8453), which tells the agent a payment flow is involved. However, it says nothing about rate limits, failure/error behavior, or freshness guarantees beyond the word 'authoritative'.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the payment metadata an agent must know before calling, then the purpose, then the return formats. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields (unix seconds, milliseconds, ISO 8601) and the payment requirement, which covers what an agent needs to invoke and consume it. Only the response envelope and error cases remain unspecified.
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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could or should clarify about inputs. The description instead spends its words on output shape, which is the right allocation here.
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?
States the resource precisely (authoritative UTC server time) and enumerates the exact return formats (unix seconds, milliseconds, ISO 8601), which is enough to separate it from util_hash/util_uuid/util_ping. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the function of the tool is unambiguous.
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?
Gives an explicit use condition: 'for agents that must timestamp without trusting their host clock.' That is a real when-to-use cue. It does not name alternatives (e.g., a local clock or the host's Date.now) or any when-not condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
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.