Skip to main content
Glama

Crypto, web, finance and app data tools

Paid Ping (x402 Test)

paid_ping

The smallest paid call: returns the server's UTC time and echoes your message. Use to test an x402 client, wallet and payment flow end to end before calling bigger tools.

Tool call template

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": "paid_ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key trait an agent can't infer elsewhere: this call is paid and is the cheapest available, so an agent knows a payment negotiation will occur. It's silent on price/currency, what happens if payment fails, and whether the call is rate limited, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences: the first specifies behavior and return, the second specifies purpose. Both are front-loaded and nothing is redundant with the schema or title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description covers the one thing structured fields don't: that this is a paid end-to-end test call. That's enough for an agent to invoke a one-parameter, zero-required tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single optional 'message' parameter has no description, but the description's 'echoes your message' does explain that the parameter is reflected back verbatim. It adds no constraints on type, nullability, or length, so it compensates only partially for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a precise verb and output: returns the server's UTC time and echoes the supplied message, and frames it as 'the smallest paid call.' That scope plus the 'paid' framing distinguishes it from the large catalog of unrelated siblings and from x402_api_search, which discovers APIs rather than exercising a payment round trip.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use to test an x402 client, wallet and payment flow end to end before calling bigger tools' explicitly states the triggering scenario and implies the ordering constraint (do this first, cheaply). It doesn't name a specific alternative to use when this is not the right choice, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources