PAID (x402): returns x402 payment instructions for the FULL verification report (LIVE endpoint probe + component breakdown) for one registry MCP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server | Yes | MCP registry server name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool is PAID (x402) and that it returns payment instructions rather than the report itself. However, it does not explain what happens after payment, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a payment-related 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?
The description is a single sentence that immediately front-loads the 'PAID' nature and clearly states the core function. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant phrasing.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description does explain the return value (x402 payment instructions). However, it lacks details on what the instructions contain, how to complete payment, and how this relates to verify_mcp_server, leaving the agent with important unanswered questions about using the tool in a workflow.
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 already provides full coverage with a clear description for the 'server' parameter. The tool description's phrase 'for one registry MCP server' aligns with the schema but adds no new meaning or syntax details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verification report of one registry MCP server. It explicitly mentions the report includes a LIVE endpoint probe and component breakdown, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool verify_mcp_server that likely runs the verification itself.
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 implies usage context by indicating it's a PAID operation and that it's for the FULL report, hinting that a lighter or free option may exist. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_mcp_server, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.
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.