Fetch full endpoint details for x402 services, listing available paths, methods, prices, and discovery files for integration.
Get detailed information about a specific x402 endpoint, including all available paths, methods, prices, and well-known discovery files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Service name from x402_search results (e.g. 'svm402', 'Tavily') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does convey what information is returned ('paths, methods, prices, and well-known discovery files'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it performs network requests, or what happens on failure, leaving some 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and quickly lists the main output categories. Every phrase contributes meaning, and there is no wasted or redundant wording.
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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of what the tool returns. It is likely enough for an agent to decide whether to call it and what to expect, though it stops short of detailing exact response structure or edge cases.
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 schema already documents the single 'name' parameter with 100% coverage, including guidance that it should come from x402_search results. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; there is no parameter documentation gap but also no extra clarification.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific x402 endpoint and enumerates the key content: paths, methods, prices, and well-known discovery files. It is specific about the verb and resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like x402_discover_urls or x402_fetch.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as x402_search, x402_discover_urls, or x402_fetch. The input schema's mention of 'Service name from x402_search results' implies a workflow, but the description itself does not state when this tool is appropriate or when another sibling should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.