Everything about an Arc token in one call: can you sell it (0-100 safety score from a real round trip, pool fee, hook) and what its owner can do (mint, pause, blacklist, upgrade). $0.002 per call over x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | the Arc token contract address (0x...) | |
| payment | No | a signed x402 payment (the same base64 payload you would put in the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header). Pass it here and the purchase completes inside this tool call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavior beyond the schema: the price ($0.002 per call over x402), the fact the safety score comes from a 'real round trip' (simulated execution), and the specific owner capabilities checked. However it does not disclose failure modes, what happens without a valid payment, or rate/pagination behavior.
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 core promise ('Everything about an Arc token in one call') and then the specifics; cost is placed last where it belongs. Slightly run-on due to stacked parentheticals, but no wasted sentences.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return content (safety score, pool fee, hook, owner privileges), plus pricing. What is missing is a mention of the x402 payment workflow failure path, but for a 2-parameter read tool this is largely complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description marginally enriches 'payment' by tying it to the x402 price model, but adds no format or syntax detail for 'token' beyond what the schema provides.
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 and resource ('Everything about an Arc token in one call') and enumerates the concrete outputs — sellability score, pool fee, hook, and owner powers (mint, pause, blacklist, upgrade). That is a real description of what the tool does, though it never names the nearby siblings (arc_token_info, arc_trust_check, arc_contract_check) it could be confused with.
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 framing 'can you sell it' implies a pre-trade safety check, which gives an agent implied usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling. The agent must infer the scenario from the phrasing alone.
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.