Skip to main content
Glama

workmine_paid_ping

Execute WORKMINE's native MCP x402 payment test for $0.001 USDC on Base. First call returns PaymentRequired; an x402-aware MCP client can retry with payment metadata and settle directly to WORKMINE.

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": "workmine_paid_ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nonceNoOptional caller nonce echoed after successful payment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key two-step payment flow and settlement target, which is useful. However, it does not cover authentication requirements, rate limits, failure modes, or what a successful retry returns beyond the schema's nonce echo.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tightly written sentences front-load the essential information: the action, the amount and network, and the expected two-step payment behavior. There is no wasted text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a payment-test tool with no output schema and a fully described single parameter, the description covers the core mechanism, cost, and network. It could still mention authentication prerequisites or the nonce echo behavior to be fully complete without relying on the schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional nonce parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as how the nonce is used or returned.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Execute WORKMINE's native MCP x402 payment test for $0.001 USDC on Base.' That clearly distinguishes it as a payment test. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as workmine_paid_ping_offer or workmine_payment_instructions.

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?

The description provides clear invocation context: the first call returns PaymentRequired, and an x402-aware MCP client can retry with payment metadata. This tells the agent what to expect and how to proceed. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.