List MOSN paid data endpoints (x402, USDC on Solana or Base): fresh screened Solana alpha, real-time new pools, holder checks, labeled memecoin dataset.
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": "mosn_paid_endpoints"
}
}| 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 full burden. It does disclose the payment model (x402, USDC on Solana or Base), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the name. However, it never says whether calling this listing tool itself costs money or requires auth, nor does it mention rate limits or pagination.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; the resource comes first and the category enumeration is compact. Nothing in it is redundant with structured fields.
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-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description is adequate on purpose but thin on behavior: it does not say whether the call is free, what an endpoint record contains, or how results are ordered/paged. An agent knows what the tool lists but not what it gets back.
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 per the baseline the schema cannot be improved on by prose and a 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, matching the empty input schema.
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?
States a specific verb (List) plus the resource (MOSN paid data endpoints) and enumerates the categories returned: screened Solana alpha, new pools, holder checks, labeled memecoin dataset. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings mosn_safe_swap and mosn_token_check, though it never names them explicitly.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g. 'call this first to discover endpoints, then use mosn_safe_swap'). The agent must infer that this is a discovery/catalog tool purely from the word 'List'.
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.