Price a call in Nano and receive a one-time payment address. Send the exact amount, then verify with the returned request ID.
Price a call in Nano. Returns {request_id, address, price_raw, price_nano}
where address is the ONE-TIME payment address for this request. Send the
exact amount there, then call verify_payment(request_id, amount_raw).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| price_nano | Yes | ||
| request_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the critical one-time payment address behavior and the required follow-up verify call, which is important for correct usage. It does not cover rate limits, idempotency, or whether the quote operation itself has side effects, but the core behavioral caveat is present.
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 sentences with no filler. The purpose and the one-time address caveat are front-loaded, and the inline return shape is compact and useful. It could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately concise.
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 description is incomplete because the meaning of the only required parameter is unexplained, and there is no output schema or annotations to fall back on. The workflow is described, but an agent cannot confidently construct a valid quote request without knowing what value to place in price_nano.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the meaning of price_nano and request_id, but it does not. The required price_nano is only named in the schema, and the description gives no guidance on how to set it (e.g., is it the desired price or a quote request amount?). request_id's purpose is only implicit through the verify_payment instruction.
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 opens with 'Price a call in Nano', specifying a clear verb and resource, and differentiates from the sibling quote_usd by currency. It also states the return payload (request_id, address, price_raw, price_nano), making the purpose concrete and easily distinguishable.
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 description provides a clear workflow: obtain a quote, send the exact amount to the one-time address, then call verify_payment(request_id, amount_raw). However, it does not explicitly contrast with quote_usd or state when not to use this tool, so exclusions are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.