Agent Weather

UTC time (NIST) (paid: 0.001 RLUSD / 0.001 USDC on Base / 0.001 RLUSD on Base via x402)

utc_time

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: What is the UTC time according to the NIST Internet Time Service right now? One shared NTP reading of time.nist.gov (refreshed at most every 30 s) with offset, round-trip and stratum shown, plus source and observed_at. NIST describes UTC(NIST) as realized from an ensemble of atomic clocks; this is a network-estimated reading, not NIST-certified or traceable, and not for safety-critical, legal-timestamp or settlement use. 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

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": "utc_time"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses the caching behavior (refreshed at most every 30 s), the accuracy caveat (network-estimated, not traceable), the exact returned fields, and the unpaid-call error contract with the x402 PaymentRequired object. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a paid read tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The text is dense but every sentence carries information (pricing, source, caveats, error flow). Minor cost: payment mechanics lead the description, so the tool's actual purpose arrives a sentence later than ideal, and pricing is repeated from the title.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (offset, round-trip, stratum, source, observed_at) and by fully describing the payment/error path. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly, pay correctly, and interpret the result's trust level.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented in the schema. The description still adds sequencing semantics – omit the parameter on the first call to get payment requirements, then retry with the signed payload either in _meta["x402/payment"] or this argument – which is genuine added meaning for a one-param tool.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific question the tool answers ("What is the UTC time according to the NIST Internet Time Service right now?") and names the underlying source (one shared NTP read of time.nist.gov). It is clearly distinguishable from database/utility siblings like base_block_tip or dns_records.

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?

It explicitly says when not to use it (not for safety-critical, legal-timestamp or settlement use) and explains the paid flow. It does not name a sibling alternative, but no obvious substitute exists among the listed tools, so the guidance is clear without exclusions being spelled out.

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?