Agent Weather

Cron next-run (paid: 0.001 RLUSD / 0.001 USDC on Base / 0.001 RLUSD on Base via x402)

cron_next

Read-only

Paid: 0.001 RLUSD per call via x402 on XRPL mainnet (xrpl:0), or 0.001 USDC on Base (eip155:8453). Pay per call, solves one question: Next UTC run times for a 5-field cron expression (max 50). Without payment this returns isError with the x402 PaymentRequired object (fresh invoiceId); retry with the signed payload in _meta["x402/payment"] or the payment_signature argument. Unpaid calls cost nothing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "expr": "<expr>"
    },
    "name": "cron_next"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`expr`	Yes
`from`	No
`count`	No
`payment_signature`	No	Optional. Base64 x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE value (signed RLUSD or USDC PaymentPayload) for hosts that cannot set _meta["x402/payment"]. Omit on the first call to receive the payment requirements.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, it discloses cost (0.001 RLUSD on XRPL or 0.001 USDC on Base), the free-first-call failure mode, the exact error shape, the retry channel, and that unpaid calls cost nothing. That is substantial behavioral context. Minor gap: annotations set idempotentHint=false for a pure read/compute over a deterministic expression, and the description does not reconcile that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is placed after payment boilerplate that largely repeats the title's price string, and prices are stated twice in the description. Content is dense and mostly earns its place, but front-loading the compute purpose would improve scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paid, four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers payment, error, and retry behavior well but leaves the semantics of from (start reference? defaults to now?) and count (default number, relationship to 'max 50') unexplained. An agent can call it with just expr, but cannot confidently use the optional parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% – only payment_signature is documented in the schema, and the description reiterates it. The description adds some meaning for expr ('5-field cron expression', 'max 50'), but 'max 50' is ambiguous (results vs. length), and from and count receive no explanation of defaults or format, leaving the low-coverage gap only partly filled.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Next UTC run times for a 5-field cron expression', which is precise enough for an agent to select it. It does not need sibling differentiation since no cron-like alternative exists among the listed tools, but the purpose statement is buried behind a long payment preamble.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear invocation protocol: an unpaid first call returns isError with a PaymentRequired object and a fresh invoiceId, then the caller retries with the signed payload in _meta["x402/payment"] or payment_signature. This is explicit how-to-use guidance for a non-obvious flow. It stops short of saying when this tool is preferable to alternatives or how the from/count arguments should be chosen.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Agent Weather tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?