Crea una orden de fondeo pagadera con x402 (USDC en la red Base). Regresa los requisitos de pago (monto exacto en USDC, direccion y referencia). Paga con tu wallet x402 y luego liquida en POST /v1/wallet/fondeos/{referencia}/x402 con el header X-PAYMENT. monto_mxn: multiplo de 100, minimo 100.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| monto_mxn | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool creates an order, returns payment requirements, and requires a separate settlement step with a specific endpoint and X-PAYMENT header. This gives an agent a clear picture of the tool's role and side-effect-free immediate behavior, though it does not discuss expiration, idempotency, or authentication.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the main function appears in the first sentence, followed by useful workflow guidance and parameter constraints. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetitive or filler content.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what the tool returns (exact USDC amount, address, reference), what to do with those values (pay with wallet, settle with endpoint/header), and the input requirements. An agent has enough context to call and continue the workflow correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds critical constraints: 'monto_mxn: multiplo de 100, minimo 100', which the schema alone does not convey. It does not explicitly state the currency, but the parameter name and larger context make that reasonably clear.
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 clearly states the specific action: 'Crea una orden de fondeo pagadera con x402 (USDC en la red Base)'. It identifies the resource (fondeo order), the payment method (x402/USDC), and the network (Base), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like crear_fondeo without additional ambiguity.
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?
The description implies usage context by describing the full workflow: create an order, pay, then settle with the given endpoint and header. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like crear_fondeo or provide exclusions, so the guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.
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.
Most tools fall into clear families such as validar_*, verificar_* and consultar_*, but there is semantic overlap among consultar_catalogo, catalogo_leyes and catalogo_servicios, and between acreditar_fondeo and verificar_pago since both process CEP XML. The descriptions usually clarify the intent, but an agent could still choose the wrong generic catalog or payment tool.
The dominant pattern is Spanish infinitive_noun, e.g. validar_rfc, verificar_empresa and consultar_saldo, but there are noticeable deviations such as catalogo_leyes, estado_servicio, tipo_cambio and verificacion_completa. The English-style screening_listas and screening_monitorear also break the Spanish verb pattern, making the naming readable but inconsistent.
With 30 tools, the server sits well above the recommended MCP range and will add significant context/selection overhead. The broad multi-domain scope explains some of the size, but several account/meta tools could be consolidated, and the overall surface feels heavier than ideal.
The core workflows are well covered: company/invoice/payment verification, legal search and lookup, fiscal calculations, identity validations, screening and constancy validation are all present. However, there are dead ends: crear_fondeo_x402 requires an out-of-band REST liquidation step, screening_monitorear has no management/removal counterpart, and registrar_obligacion has no list/delete tools.