carpe_x402_statusCheck x402 wallet status: agent address, USDC balance on Base, permit budget, billed amounts, and remaining funds. Use it to track pay-per-call spending before and after Venice AI requests.
x402 mode only: the agent wallet address, its USDC balance on Base, the permit budget, what was billed and what is left. Free.
| 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?
readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive are already declared, so the description's job is to add context — which it does by disclosing that the call is free and that it is scoped to x402 mode. It does not say whether the USDC balance is read live on-chain or from an internal ledger, which is the one remaining behavioral ambiguity.
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 sentence that front-loads the mode restriction and then lists the returned fields, ending with the cost note. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating what the response contains, which is the right call for a zero-parameter status tool. Only a note on freshness of the balance would make it fully 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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-related omissions exist.
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 names a concrete resource (the agent wallet) and enumerates the specific fields it reports: address, USDC balance on Base, permit budget, billed amount, and remainder. The 'x402 mode only' qualifier implicitly separates it from the general balance/status siblings, though it never names one outright.
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?
'x402 mode only' is a real precondition that tells an agent when this tool is applicable, and 'Free' signals there is no cost to calling it. However, it does not name an alternative for non-x402 contexts (e.g. carpe_balance), leaving the agent to infer the routing itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.