Retrieve today's x402 payment offer details—price, network, asset, and payee—without paying, and check whether the paid tool is configured.
The x402 payment offer for today's issue (price, network, asset, payee) without paying, and whether the paid tool is configured in this server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully states that the offer can be retrieved without paying and that it reveals whether the paid tool is configured, but it does not discuss side effects, authentication, rate limits, or whether it makes external calls.
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 that packs the returned fields and the no-payment behavior without unnecessary text. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.
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 the description need not document return values in detail. It covers the core purpose, the no-payment behavior, and the configuration check; for a zero-parameter read tool, this is nearly complete, though sibling routing guidance would improve it.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless schema is 4; the description does not need to compensate further.
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 clearly identifies the resource: the x402 payment offer for today's issue, including price, network, asset, payee, and whether the paid tool is configured. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name sibling tools such as get_latest_issue, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 'without paying' implies this is a non-paying way to inspect payment details, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_latest_issue or get_catalog. Usage is therefore implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.