validate_x402_configFree: checks Base USDC, price, amount, recipient, and facilitator settings before you deploy an x402-paid MCP tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | ||
| payTo | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| network | Yes | ||
| priceUsd | Yes | ||
| facilitatorUrl | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a 'Free' caveat and names the checked fields, but doesn't disclose what happens on validation failure or whether the check contacts the facilitator URL.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence conveys scope, timing, and cost without filler. Every phrase earns its place.
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 6-required-param validator with no output schema, the description gives the right usage context but omits what a successful vs. failed validation returns and doesn't fully explain parameter constraints. It is adequate but leaves 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 maps most parameters to everyday terms (Base USDC, price, amount, recipient, facilitator settings), but leaves network enum values, amount format, and address/URL formats unstated.
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 specific verb ('checks') and names a concrete resource ('x402 payment configuration') plus the specific settings involved. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling get_paid_sample, but the action and resource are distinct enough to avoid confusion.
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?
States a clear usage context: run this before deploying an x402-paid MCP tool. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before you deploy' timing is explicit and actionable.
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.
The two tools are clearly distinct: one is a free configuration validator, the other is a paid sample path. There is no overlap or realistic chance of selecting the wrong tool for a task.
Both tool names follow an imperative verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_paid_sample and validate_x402_config. The naming style is consistent and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but for a starter server this minimal pair is reasonable. Each tool serves a clearly necessary purpose in the validate-then-test workflow.
For an x402 MCP starter, the surface covers the essential loop: validate configuration before deploying and then confirm the paid flow works end-to-end. There are no obvious missing operations within the stated scope.