city.sampleGet a free fixed-address property compliance sample for one US city code. Use before city.check to validate city_code and response shape without paying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Optional agent identity for quota accounting. | |
| city_code | Yes | City code from city.list. Examples: 'mn', 'sea', 'nyc', 'chi'. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond these flags: the sample is free, tied to a fixed address, and is intended for pre-validation before a paid check. This is meaningful additional behavioral guidance.
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 exactly two sentences: one states the core action and the other states its intended use. It is front-loaded, focused, and 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?
The tool is simple, has one required parameter, an output schema, and annotations that declare safety. The description provides the critical free/paid distinction and explicit 'use before' guidance. Nothing necessary for calling it correctly 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents city_code and agent_id. The description confirms that city_code is a single US city code, matching the schema's examples but adding minimal new semantic information beyond the structured fields.
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 names the action, the resource type, and the scope: 'Get a free fixed-address property compliance sample for one US city code.' It also identifies the related tool city.check, making the purpose distinct and understandable immediately.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use before city.check to validate city_code and response shape without paying.' This gives an agent a precise use case and effectively routes to or away from city.check.
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 namespaces help, but there is real overlap in purpose: city.check with x402.pay_and_fetch, city.sample with x402.probe, and multiple tools that verify a payment and then activate, credit, or settle something. The descriptions clarify which resource is being paid for, but tool names alone leave room for misselection.
Nearly every tool uses a lower-case dotted namespace.action pattern, making the set easy to scan. Some command parts are inconsistent, though: x402.networks, pulse.base, and commerce.credits_requirements read as nouns rather than actions, so the style is mostly but not fully uniform.
Nineteen tools is in the heavy range, and they span many subsystems: x402, city, commerce/quotas, swarm, ops, and Base network metrics. The number is not extreme, but the server feels like multiple product surfaces bundled under one MCP rather than a tightly scoped toolset.
The x402 lifecycle is well covered: discover, probe, pay, fetch, verify, sell, and settle, plus supportive commerce and city workflows. Notable gaps are refunds/quota-balance checks, seller resource update/removal, and invoice-like management for Stripe/card purchases, but none blocks the object workflows.