Run a technical payment preflight to verify Base payment surface readiness. Without paid access, returns the hosted HTTP 402 order payload.
Run technical payment preflight. Without paid access this returns the hosted HTTP 402 order payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | ||
| amount | No | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| access_token | No | ||
| token_contract | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful conditional behavior: without paid access it returns a hosted HTTP 402 order payload. Still, it does not clarify whether the tool has side effects, how successful access behaves, or any authorization requirements beyond the vague 'paid access'.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior is stated efficiently. Every clause earns 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?
The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no schema-level descriptions, so the description must compensate, but it covers only one behavioral outcome. It omits how the parameters interact, what a successful preflight returns, and when optional fields like amount or token_contract should be supplied.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (chain, address, amount, access_token, token_contract). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool description provides no additional meaning or usage context for any of them.
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 resource ('technical payment preflight') and adds a concrete behavioral detail about returning the hosted HTTP 402 order payload. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, although it does not explicitly contrast itself with them and 'technical payment preflight' remains somewhat jargon-heavy.
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 'Run technical payment preflight' implies this is the tool to use when a payment preflight is needed, and the 'Without paid access...' clause gives conditional context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it describe preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.