[PAID $0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Fresh UUID v4 with generation timestamp.
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_uuid"
}
}| 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 whole burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral facts an agent needs: the call is paid ($0.002 USDC via x402 on eip155:8453) and the return includes the generation timestamp. It stops short of describing payment prerequisites (wallet/balance, what happens on unpaid calls) or whether v4 randomness is cryptographically secure.
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 no waste, and the returned artifact is front-loaded. The bracketed payment prefix consumes the first clause but is genuinely needed pricing information 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 zero-parameter utility with no output schema, the description tells the agent both what it gets back (UUID v4 plus timestamp) and what it costs, which is the essential context. Only the payment/auth mechanics for the x402 flow are left implicit.
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?
Zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds the useful note that the timestamp accompanies the UUID in the response.
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?
"Fresh UUID v4 with generation timestamp" names a specific resource (UUID v4) and the operation (generate fresh), plus the return content. Against siblings like util_hash, util_ping and util_time it is distinguishable by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with util_hash.
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 when-to-use guidance or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is for generating unique identifiers and that util_hash/util_time cover different needs; nothing in the text routes between them.
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.