Finds a matching live x402 API endpoint by score, then returns its URL, method, price, 1% router fee, and total without paying or calling the endpoint.
Ask the x402 Router for the single best-scored LIVE endpoint matching filters (free POST /route). Returns target URL, method, price, 1% router fee and total. Does not pay or call the target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| agent | No | ||
| chain | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| max_price | 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 behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that the route call is free, that it returns target URL, method, price, router fee, and total, and that it does not pay or call the target. It leaves out auth/rate-limit behavior, so it is strong but not complete.
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 two tight sentences, front-loads the core action, and then adds the return shape and the key non-action boundary. Every sentence provides useful 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?
The description covers the return fields and the important fact that it does not execute payment or call the target, which helps compensate for the lack of an output schema. However, for a tool with five entirely undocumented optional parameters, it is not complete enough on input semantics.
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 description coverage is 0% for five parameters, so the description needs to compensate. It only says results are 'matching filters' and does not explain what q, agent, chain, category, or max_price mean or how they affect routing.
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 states a specific operation: asking the x402 Router for the single best-scored LIVE endpoint matching filters. The 'single best-scored' framing distinguishes it from the sibling search_x402_endpoints tool, which implies a broader search/list operation.
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 implies usage by saying this returns a routing recommendation and explicitly notes it does not pay or call the target. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over search_x402_endpoints or get_paid_route_requirements, nor does it name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.