Get an x402-compliant payment quote for claiming a specific block. Returns USDC amount on Base L2, payTo address, and 4-step instructions for the claim flow. Demo mode is indicated via instructions.mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| h | Yes | Height in tiles | |
| w | Yes | Width in tiles | |
| x | Yes | Top-left tile x | |
| y | Yes | Top-left tile y |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (USDC amount, payTo address, 4-step instructions) and indicates a demo mode via 'instructions.mode'. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only (likely, as it's a quote), any side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is partially adequate but lacks safety and mutation details.
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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the main purpose, and the second lists key return fields and the demo mode indicator. Every word is essential; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, making it ideal for an AI agent.
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?
Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return fields but omits important context: the validity period of the quote, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., need to have a block selected), or connection to other tools like 'claim_block'. The mention of 'demo mode' is left unexplained. For a quote tool, these gaps reduce completeness. However, it provides a solid foundation.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters (x, y, w, h), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how these parameters define a 'specific block' or their relationship. Since the description adds no new param info and the schema already provides basic descriptions, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get an x402-compliant payment quote for claiming a specific block.' It specifies the action (get a quote), the compliance standard (x402), and the resource (a block). The mention of return fields (USDC amount, payTo address, 4-step instructions) further clarifies what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'claim_block' which presumably executes the claim, and 'price_check' which is more general.
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 is for obtaining a quote before claiming a block, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'claim_block', 'get_block', or 'price_check'. No guidance is given on prerequisites, order of operations, or when not to use it. The mention of 'demo mode' hints at a special case but lacks clarity. Some implied usage exists from the context, but explicit guidance is missing.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: block discovery, pricing, claiming, reading, survey operations, and service listing. No two tools are ambiguous in their function.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., claim_block, get_block, list_services). The only outlier is 'price_check' which reverses the order, but it's still clear.
8 tools is well-scoped for the canvas domain, covering discovery, pricing, claiming, surveys, and service listing without overcomplicating the surface.
Core workflows (discover, price, claim, survey, list services) are covered. Missing a tool to register or update services, but the overall surface feels complete for the intended use.