Quote one product and return the exact x402 purchase URL without spending funds.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"product": "<product>"
},
"name": "quote_token_product"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No | ||
| product | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the most important behavioral trait: the operation does not spend funds. Missing are details about whether the optional address affects the quote, whether any network call occurs, or whether the returned URL expires.
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 a single well-structured sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, output, and safety qualifier are all front-loaded and each phrase adds value.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide context on its own. It covers the core purpose and return value, but leaves the address parameter and the relationship to list_products unexplained. For a simple 2-parameter tool this is adequate but still has clear gaps.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'product' is the item being quoted, but it gives no meaning to the 'address' parameter, which is nullable and optional. The agent would have no way to know what address should contain.
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 uses a concrete verb (quote), identifies the resource (one product), and states the result (exact x402 purchase URL). It also adds the 'without spending funds' qualifier, which clearly separates it from purchase/execution tools and from the sibling list_products.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: the 'without spending funds' phrasing suggests using this tool when a quote or pre-payment URL is needed. However, it never names list_products, states when not to use this tool, or explains the choice between browsing products and quoting one.
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.