Convert a Unix timestamp (seconds or milliseconds, detected automatically) to ISO date and time, or an ISO date to a Unix timestamp. Without input, returns the current time in both forms. Use to read timestamps in logs and APIs. Costs $0.001 in USDC on Base per successful call, paid with x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No | Unix seconds/milliseconds or an ISO date (default now) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the unit auto-detection (seconds vs milliseconds) and, importantly, the paid-call model ($0.001 USDC on Base via x402), which explains why readOnlyHint=false for a pure conversion. It does not explain what happens on invalid input, but the cost/auth context is genuinely valuable.
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?
Three tightly packed sentences: conversion behavior first, default behavior second, usage and cost last. No filler; every sentence carries load.
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?
With no output schema, the description helpfully states the return forms (ISO date/time, Unix timestamp, or both for the now case) and covers payment. Edge cases such as invalid input handling and the exact ISO format emitted are the only omissions.
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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the fact that units are detected automatically and that omitting the value yields the current time in both forms — meaning beyond the schema's terse 'default now'.
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 precise verb+resource pair: converting a Unix timestamp to ISO date/time and the reverse, plus the no-input default. It is distinguishable from most siblings, but the sibling 'time' is never addressed, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate between them from this text alone.
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?
One clause, 'Use to read timestamps in logs and APIs,' gives a context but no when-not guidance and no routing to the near-identical 'time' sibling. Usage is implied rather than instructed.
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.