Parse any x402 Payment Required (HTTP 402) response body from any API. Returns structured payment instructions: chain, token, amount, recipient, retry headers. FREE — no API key ever needed. Works on x711 402 responses AND any other x402-compliant API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | The raw 402 response body (JSON object or string). Pass the full response body from the 402 response you received. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a parse operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is free, requires no authentication, and returns specific fields (chain, token, amount, recipient, retry headers). This goes beyond the schema and annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, free/no-auth, and compatibility with any x402 API. The 'FREE' emphasis is slightly promotional but still informative for an agent deciding to invoke it.
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 one-parameter parser with no output schema, the description is complete. It states the input requirement, the output structure (list of fields), and the scope (any x402-compliant API). An agent can confidently select and call this tool to parse a 402 response without needing additional details.
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 sole parameter 'body' is fully documented in the schema with a clear description of the expected input (raw 402 response body, JSON object or string). The tool description reinforces the same idea but does not add new syntax or format details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the specific verb 'parse' and resource 'x402 Payment Required (HTTP 402) response body', and lists the exact structured output fields (chain, token, amount, recipient, retry headers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on unrelated domains like agents, vaults, or web search.
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 states when to use the tool: when you have a 402 response body, from x711 or any other x402-compliant API. It also notes that no API key is ever needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given the unique niche, the context is reasonably clear.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple search tools (web_search, deep_search, data_retrieval) and multiple communication tools (agent_ping, agent_telegram, swarm_broadcast). The descriptions help differentiate, but the boundaries are not always clear.
All tools consistently use the 'x711_' prefix and lowercase_with_underscores format. Submodules like agent, hive, and tx follow predictable patterns. Minor deviations (e.g., x711_ask_clerk) are rare and still descriptive.
With 47 tools, the server is excessively large for a typical MCP service. While it aims to be a comprehensive platform, the high count makes navigation and selection cumbersome for an agent.
The tool set covers a wide range of agent needs: web access, memory, communication, on-chain transactions, code execution, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no agent deletion tool), but overall it is remarkably complete for the stated purpose of an agent platform.