x402engine-mcp

service_health

Check live health metrics for x402engine services—latency, error rates, request volume, and status—to compare and select a service. Free, no payment required.

Instructions

Get live health metrics for all x402engine services — latency (p50/p95/p99), error rates, request volume, and status. Free, no payment required. Call this before choosing which service to use.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "service_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`service`	No	Filter to a specific service ID (e.g., 'image-fast'). Omit for all services.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free ('Free, no payment required') and provides live data, which are useful behavioral facts. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool that reports on service health.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and metrics; the second adds essential usage and cost context. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains what metrics are returned, the free nature, and when to call it. Minor omissions like response format or pagination are not critical for this straightforward health-check tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully documents the sole parameter 'service' with a clear description ('Filter to a specific service ID... Omit for all services'), yielding 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'live health metrics for all x402engine services', enumerating the exact metrics (latency, error rates, request volume, status). This differentiates it from sibling tools like discover_services and get_crypto_price by focusing on health/status rather than general discovery or financial data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'Call this before choosing which service to use', providing clear when-to-use context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the instruction is actionable and sufficient for an agent deciding to invoke this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.