Generic beginning-to-end MUJ428 service bridge. Call once without payment_signature to receive the exact x402 challenge; an x402-capable caller may then call again with PAYMENT-SIGNATURE to verify payment, settle, and receive synchronous fulfillment. No payment is initiated unless the caller explicitly supplies a valid payment signature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| payment_signature | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-phase behavior, synchronous fulfillment, and that payment is only initiated with a valid signature. However, it does not describe potential side effects, error handling, or whether the service is idempotent, leaving some transparency gaps.
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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the key behavior (two-phase call). Every sentence adds value, and no extraneous information is included.
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 tool with 3 params, an enum, and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the critical workflow but omits details on the 'request' object and per-service specifics. It is adequate for a high-level call flow but not complete for an agent to construct correct requests without further schema info.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'payment_signature' and 'service' implicitly via the protocol. It does not explain the 'request' object structure or what each service enum value entails. The 'request' nested object is completely undocumented in the description, leaving a critical gap.
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 states that it is a service bridge for MUJ428 and describes the two-phase call pattern, which is more specific than just the name. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'trust_action' beyond referencing a specific protocol.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to call: first without payment_signature to get a challenge, then with payment_signature to complete. It also clarifies that no payment is initiated without a valid signature, which helps set expectations. However, it does not mention when to choose this over siblings like 'trust_action'.
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.