Create a live x402 challenge for an exact-address OFAC payment preflight. This does not move funds and is not sanctions clearance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| network | No | eip155:8453 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a live challenge is created, explicitly says no funds move, and clarifies this is not sanctions clearance. This gives meaningful transparency, though it does not detail other side effects such as whether state persists.
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?
Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose first, then immediately clarify non-behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it: create a live preflight challenge for an address, without moving funds. It could be stronger by mentioning the network semantics, but the default in the schema covers most of that gap.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to address via 'exact-address', but it does not explain the network parameter or its default value. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema warrants a mid-range score.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Create a live x402 challenge' for an 'exact-address OFAC payment preflight'. It also distances itself from payment execution and sanctions clearance, which differentiates it from siblings like submit_x402_payment.
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 clearly frames when this tool applies: for an exact-address OFAC payment preflight. It also gives useful exclusions ('does not move funds', 'not sanctions clearance'), implying that fund movement should go to submit_x402_payment, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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.
The four get_*_ayment tools all create live x402 challenges and differ only by product, while get_quote and get_example_payment both provide example input data — creating real selection ambiguity. Descriptions do clarify the product and side-effect differences, but an agent must read carefully to avoid picking the wrong one.
All tools use lowercase snake_case with a verb prefix, and the get_X_payment pattern for challenge creation is consistent. However, 'get' is overloaded to cover both free reads that create no side effects and challenge creation calls, and get_payment_preflight_payment has a redundant 'ayment' that muddies the naming pattern.
Eight tools map cleanly to the paid-evidence workflow: status check, quote, four product-specific challenge creators, payment submission, and a capability-request escape hatch. Each tool earns its place, and the count is well-scoped for a niche paid API.
The core quote→challenge→submit→result flow is covered, and request_capability is a good gap-filler for missing products. Minor gaps remain: there is no explicit result-retrieval tool beyond request_id replay, and product discovery is implicit through get_quote and get_service_status rather than a dedicated list endpoint.
