Retrieve the x402 payment requirements for the paid route without paying, so you can inspect payment details before deciding whether to call it.
Return the x402 payment requirements of the paid route (/route/paid) without paying.
| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important trait - that this call does not incur payment - and it hardcodes the route path, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the route is unregistered.
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 with zero waste, leading with the return value and the non-payment guarantee. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
For a zero-param probe tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks the shape of the returned requirements (fields, currency/amount format) and whether the endpoint is public. Adequate but leaves notable gaps given nothing else documents the response.
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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The fixed '/route/paid' target is stated in the text, reinforcing that no input is needed.
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?
States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('x402 payment requirements of the paid route /route/paid'), and the 'without paying' clause implicitly separates it from route_x402_request. It never names the siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.
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?
'without paying' hints at inspecting requirements before committing to a paid call, which implies a workflow position relative to route_x402_request. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.