get_clausepilot_payment_infoReturns the ClausePilot flagship paid contract-risk API URL, price, network and x402 payment protocol without charging.
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": "get_clausepilot_payment_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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioural fact that the call is free ('without charging') and that it exposes x402 payment protocol details, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or whether the returned URL/price can change. Adequate but thin for an annotation-free tool.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the four return fields plus the no-charge guarantee with no filler.
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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (URL, price, network, payment protocol) and the pricing guarantee. It could still say more about output shape or freshness, but nothing essential 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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for.
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?
Uses a specific verb (Returns) with a named resource (ClausePilot flagship paid contract-risk API URL, price, network, x402 payment protocol), and enumerates what comes back. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_clausepilot_paid_tools or analyze_contract_risk purely from the description.
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 phrase 'without charging' implies this is the free metadata/discovery call an agent should make before touching a paid tool, but the description never states when to use it versus list_clausepilot_paid_tools or why an agent would call it. Usage is implied, not explicit.
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.