catalogFree. Lists every tool with its price in USD, the accepted networks and how x402 payment works over MCP.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "catalog"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds non-trivial context beyond that: the call is free (no payment gating) and it returns payment mechanics for x402 over MCP, which tells the agent this is the discovery/onboarding endpoint rather than a data tool. Return format details are absent but the content is enumerated.
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?
One short sentence with the most actionable fact ('Free.') front-loaded, followed by the enumerated contents. Nothing is padded or restated from the name.
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 simple, read-only, parameterless discovery tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work by naming the three things returned. It could say slightly more about what the price/network entries look like, but nothing required to call 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema has nothing to misinterpret and the description correctly describes a no-input call.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists every tool with its price in USD') plus the supplementary payload (networks, x402 payment flow). It is unambiguous what an agent gets back, though it doesn't position itself against any sibling — reasonable, since no sibling appears to be a catalog.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs pricing or payment details. The leading 'Free.' does signal there is no x402 charge for this call, which is a useful selection cue, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.
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.