PAID (x402): returns x402 payment instructions for the FULL deduped, quality-scored MCP registry snapshot. Use search_mcp_registry (free) for targeted lookups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing the key behavioral trait 'PAID (x402)' and describing the output as 'x402 payment instructions.' It doesn't detail side effects or security requirements, but the core paid nature and data scope are transparent enough for this simple tool.
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, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. The paid indicator is prominent, and the alternative is mentioned in a single, clear directive.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully explains the return type and purpose, and even provides a usage direction. Nothing essential is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't repeat irrelevant param details.
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 tool 'returns x402 payment instructions for the FULL deduped, quality-scored MCP registry snapshot,' naming the exact resource and action. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from search_mcp_registry by emphasizing the 'FULL snapshot' and paid nature.
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?
Explicit guidance is given: 'Use search_mcp_registry (free) for targeted lookups.' This tells the agent when to use this paid tool versus a free alternative, satisfying the dimension fully.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: free vs. paid, list vs. snapshot, search vs. verify, and the standalone risk assessment. Even the similar verification tools are differentiated by 'preview' versus 'full report', leaving no ambiguity.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_, verify_, assess_). The only outlier is 'feeds_status', which uses a noun phrase instead of a verb-led form, creating a minor inconsistency.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its dual purpose of MCP registry access and x402 services. Each tool adds distinct value, and the count comfortably fits the typical 3-15 range without feeling bloated or thin.
The tool set covers the full read-only lifecycle for both feeds: free search, paid full snapshots, delta changes, trending highlights, per-server verification (preview and full), live service listing, and aggregate status. No obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.