Run technical payment readiness checks before attempting a transaction on Base, using chain, address, amount, and token contract to prevent failed payments.
Run technical payment preflight before a payment attempt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | ||
| amount | No | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| token_contract | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / access_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "title": "Access Token"
-}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Preflight' hints at a non-mutating check, but the description does not state whether it has side effects, what it returns, whether it blocks the payment, or what technical conditions it verifies. This is a significant transparency gap.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and context immediately, which makes it easy for an agent to parse. Additional structure would be helpful, but as written it is economical.
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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no schema-description coverage, one sentence is insufficient. The agent has no information about parameter semantics, prerequisites, behavioral outcomes, or edge cases; the output schema only covers return structure, not invocation logic.
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 0%, yet the description mentions none of the four parameters or their roles. It does not clarify why chain and address are required or why amount and token_contract are optional, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and names the resource ('technical payment preflight') with a clear temporal anchor ('before a payment attempt'). The payment qualifier helps distinguish it from the sibling repo/bounty tools, though 'technical' remains somewhat vague.
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?
'Before a payment attempt' gives clear invocation context, and the domain mismatch with siblings (repo/bounty vs payment) makes the intended use fairly obvious. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.