payment_optimizerRank only integration-tested payment routes under explicit cost and latency constraints.; 0.003 USDC. Deterministic, evidence-bounded and signed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "policy": {
+ "max_latency_ms": 2000,
+ "max_total_atomic": 4000
+ },
+ "routes": [
+ {
+ "amount_atomic": 3000,
+ "fee_atomic": 10,
+ "id": "base-usdc",
+ "latency_ms": 800,
+ "production_tested": true,
+ "success_rate": 0.98
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds 'deterministic, evidence-bounded and signed,' which is genuine behavioral context about output trustworthiness, but it omits return-shape/pagination details (mitigated by the output schema).
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?
It is short and front-loads the core action, but the fragment '0.003 USDC.' is unexplained (tool cost? minimum amount?) and the stray semicolon makes the sentence structure sloppy. Each fragment does not clearly earn its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool sitting among several payment-routing siblings, the description leaves the routing decision itself unaddressed, which is the main missing context.
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?
Parameter count is 0 and schema description coverage is 100%, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not (and need not) elaborate on the policy/routes payload the schema already documents via its example.
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?
States a specific verb (rank) and resource (payment routes) with a scope qualifier (only integration-tested) and operating constraints (cost and latency). Clear, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling payment_route_selector or x402_v2_router, so an agent must infer which routing tool to pick.
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 'under explicit cost and latency constraints' plus 'only integration-tested' implies the condition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative routing siblings. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
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.