Show prepaid batch-credit pricing, x402 configuration, and List pass tiers. Optionally quote a credit quantity. Uses no payment.
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": "x402-pricing"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| credits | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that the tool 'Uses no payment,' which is useful context, and it implies informational output. However, with readOnlyHint=false, an agent cannot tell whether quoting a credit quantity creates state, whether any permissions are required, or what the result looks like. The description does not resolve that ambiguity.
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 definition is short and front-loads the main purpose. The three sentences are efficient, though the middle sentence about quoting could be clearer about what a quote entails.
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 pricing/configuration lookup with no output schema, the description covers the main topics and the optional parameter. It leaves gaps around return format and side-effect behavior, especially given the readOnlyHint=false annotation.
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 carry the parameter explanation. It identifies 'credits' as an optional credit quantity used for quoting, which gives useful meaning beyond the raw integer and minimum constraint in the schema, but it does not explain units or the significance of the 2000 minimum.
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 the specific verb 'Show' and names concrete resources: prepaid batch-credit pricing, x402 configuration, and List pass tiers. It is clear what information the tool surfaces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from pricing-adjacent siblings like x402-credit-purchase or x402-credit-balance.
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 only usage cue is that a credit quantity can optionally be quoted. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of checking a balance, purchasing credits, or using another pricing-related sibling, and no exclusions are stated.
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.