Aether: Base onchain data & token risk (x402)

triage_invoice

Read-only

Which overdue invoice should be chased, and what is the next step? Send an invoice number, client reference, amount and days overdue; get its aging category and the next action to take. Deterministic rules, no AI: the same input always gives the same answer. Price: $0.01 USDC on Base via x402.

Tool call template

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": {
      "invoiceNumber": "<invoiceNumber>",
      "clientReference": "<clientReference>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "daysOverdue": "<daysOverdue>"
    },
    "name": "triage_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount`	Yes
`daysOverdue`	Yes
`invoiceNumber`	Yes
`clientReference`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld, so the description's additions matter: it discloses determinism ('no AI: the same input always gives the same answer') and a concrete payment requirement ($0.01 USDC on Base via x402). Those are real behavioral facts an agent needs, though error behavior and the set of aging categories are left unstated.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded, moving from purpose to inputs to output to behavior to price in a compact block. 'Deterministic rules, no AI' and 'the same input always gives the same answer' are slightly redundant but each still earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return (aging category plus next action) and adds determinism and pricing context. It is essentially complete for a stateless read tool, missing only detail on the category taxonomy.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden and it does partially by naming all four inputs (invoice number, client reference, amount, days overdue). However it adds no format or unit guidance, leaving ambiguities such as the meaning of a negative daysOverdue (schema allows -365) unexplained.

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 names a specific action (triage an overdue invoice), its inputs, and its outputs (aging category and next action), which clearly separates it from the base_* and audit_* siblings. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation, but the invoice-triage purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The framing question ('Which overdue invoice should be chased?') implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. Usage is only inferred from the rhetorical setup.

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

All Aether: Base onchain data & token risk (x402) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?