Whether the Keeta x402 facilitator answers right now. If it is down, paid reads cannot settle. Free.
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_x402_health"
}
}| 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?
readOnlyHint already covers safety, and the description adds meaningfully to it: this is a live, moment-in-time check, a failed result blocks settlement of paid reads, and the call itself is free. The remaining gap is return shape (boolean vs. status object) and freshness/staleness, which are not disclosed.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is checked, followed by the consequence and the cost. No filler or repetition of schema data.
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, no-output-schema probe the description carries most of what an agent needs: target, meaning of failure, and cost. Only the exact response shape and whether the result is cached remain unspecified.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Names the specific resource (the Keeta x402 facilitator) and the exact question answered (does it answer right now), so an agent can tell this is a liveness probe. It is not framed as a verb+resource, but the scope is unambiguous and no sibling in the list offers the same thing.
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?
'If it is down, paid reads cannot settle' implies the call should precede paid reads, but the description never states an explicit when-to-use rule or what to do on a negative result. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.
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.