USDC-on-Base receiving address, packs, and x402 instructions. Receive-only: this server never holds a private key.
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": "get_payment_info"
}
}| 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 supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: the server is receive-only and never holds a private key, which reassures the agent this is a non-custodial read. It says nothing about caching, freshness of the address, rate limits, or whether the same address is returned on every call.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, with the payload description front-loaded and the safety constraint second. The only inefficiency is 'packs', which is opaque and would need a clause to be useful.
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 must stand in for the return shape, and it only enumerates three broad items without saying what 'packs' or 'x402 instructions' actually contain. It is adequate to decide to call the tool but thin for interpreting the result.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The text correctly implies no input is needed.
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 names the concrete payload: a USDC-on-Base receiving address, packs, and x402 instructions, so an agent knows this returns payment-configuration data rather than balances or invoices. The verb is only implied by the tool name (get_), and 'packs' is unexplained jargon, but the resource is still identifiable and separable from siblings like get_balance or check_invoice.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the 15 siblings. An agent must infer from the noun phrase alone that this is the tool to call before asking a payer to send USDC.
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.