Get the status of a x402 payment session (pending | paid | fulfilled | expired), with destination, amount and tx hash. Useful to poll while waiting for the paying agent's on-chain transaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment_id | Yes | The paymentId returned by payment_required (pay_...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned status values and fields, and the 'Get' and 'poll' wording implies a non-mutating read operation. It does not detail permissions or side effects, but for a status getter this is sufficient.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then return details and usage. Every clause contributes meaning; no redundancy or filler.
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 adequately explains return contents (status, destination, amount, tx hash), the source of the input parameter, and a typical usage scenario. For a simple one-parameter getter, this is complete.
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%: payment_id is described as 'The paymentId returned by payment_required (pay_...)'. The tool description adds no further parameter details, so it merely meets the baseline without adding extra meaning.
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 action ('Get the status of a x402 payment session') and specifies the resource and return fields (statuses, destination, amount, tx hash). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like payment_required or payment_incoming, which handle payment creation/receipt.
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 description provides explicit usage context: 'Useful to poll while waiting for the paying agent's on-chain transaction.' It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the polling use case is clear enough to guide selection.
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.
Several tools overlap in the information they return: get_agent_info, verify_agent, and is_agent_revoked all provide agent status or verification details. Descriptions help distinguish raw registry data from a comprehensive verification check, but the boundaries are somewhat blurry, potentially leading to misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, is_, log_, report_, verify_), with no mixed casing or unconventional naming. The use of different verbs for different actions is logical, though the get_ prefix dominates the read operations.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped and falls within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool addresses a distinct need in the domain of agent identity verification and action logging, and none feel superfluous or redundant.
The server covers reading agent information, verifying identity, and logging actions, but lacks essential lifecycle operations such as registering, updating, or revoking agents. While this may be intentional for an external registry, it leaves notable gaps for a fully self-contained tool set.
