code402_gateway_healthCheck the code402 gateway's /healthz: returns { status, service, network } where network is the settlement chain currently configured (e.g. base-sepolia or base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds useful context by naming the endpoint and the response fields (status, service, network), which helps the agent understand exactly what this read-only call returns. No contradictions with annotations.
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, well-structured sentence packs all necessary information: the endpoint, the response shape, and an example of the network value. No fluff or redundancy; it is front-loaded and immediately informative.
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-parameter, read-only health check, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. With annotations already providing safety semantics and no output schema, this description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without further clarification.
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 has no parameters, so the baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings, and the 100% schema coverage is trivial for an empty schema. It effectively communicates that no input is required.
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 checks the gateway's /healthz endpoint and specifies the exact return structure ({ status, service, network }). It is distinct from sibling tools (which focus on listings, sellers, etc.) by naming the specific endpoint and its health-check purpose.
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 usage context is implied: this is for checking gateway health and configuration. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given the sibling tools, no alternative health check exists, and the description makes its purpose unmistakable. A small gap is the lack of explicit 'use this when you need to know the gateway status or settlement chain.'
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource or action: seller management, listing management, service discovery, health, reputation, analytics, invoice, probe, and trust. Even the two endpoint-checking tools (probe_endpoint and trust_check) serve clearly different purposes—one tests live challenges, the other queries an index.
All tools follow a strict code402_verb_noun pattern with clear, consistent verbs (create, get, list, probe, register, trust). The naming is uniform and predictable, making tool selection straightforward.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—a gateway for paid API listings and trust management. Each tool serves a distinct functional need without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers core workflows: seller registration, listing creation/update, service discovery, analytics, invoicing, reputation, and trust checks. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit listing deletion or a standalone reputation verification tool, but these are either covered implicitly or out of scope for the MCP surface.