Free: endpoints, pricing, x402 payment setup (USDC on Base) and discovery links for the ox-alpha signals service.
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": "service_info"
}
}| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists informational content, which implies a read-only operation, but it never explicitly states there are no side effects, no authentication requirements, or that only static service metadata is returned. Without an output schema, the description leaves the actual response behavior unclear.
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 one short sentence with no filler, making it easy to parse. The 'Free:' prefix is somewhat cryptic—it could refer to the tool's cost or the service's content—and slightly detracts from clarity, but overall the size is well matched to the tool's simplicity.
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 zero-parameter informational tool, the description provides the main content areas and names the service, which is adequate for basic invocation. However, it does not describe the response format, the relationship to sibling tools, or what 'x402' and 'discovery links' mean. The lack of an output schema makes this missing context more significant.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema, and it correctly omits any parameter details.
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 makes clear that the tool provides service-related information: endpoints, pricing, x402 payment setup, and discovery links for the ox-alpha signals service. The verb is implied rather than explicit, and there is no sibling differentiation, but the content is specific and distinguishable from preview, price, report, and signals.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use service_info versus preview, price, report, or signals. The description lists content categories but does not say whether this is the introductory overview tool or when an agent should prefer a sibling. The usage context is entirely left to inference.
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.