Verify your wallet setup, chosen designation, current network prices, and session budget before using paid tools. Does not check balance or authorize payment.
FREE. Check local wallet configuration, chosen designation, current service network/prices, and session budget. This does not verify wallet balance or authorize a payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool is free, does not verify wallet balance, and does not authorize a payment, which are important behavioral constraints. It could go further by explicitly stating whether the tool makes network calls or what the output shape looks like, but the key safety-related exclusions are covered.
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?
Two short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the tool's main purpose, and the second sentence clarifies critical limitations. 'FREE.' is concise and immediately useful for cost awareness.
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 0-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context to decide when to call it and what it returns conceptually. The only minor gap is that 'readiness' is not explicitly defined, and the return format is not described, but this is acceptable for such a lightweight check.
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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds meaning by enumerating the categories of data it checks, which helps the agent understand what the tool offers despite having no inputs.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Check') with concrete resources: local wallet configuration, chosen designation, network/prices, and session budget. It clearly frames the tool as a pre-flight readiness check and distinguishes itself from balance verification and payment authorization, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name.
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 when to use this tool, such as checking readiness before an action, and explicitly states what it does not do (verify balance or authorize payment). However, it does not name any alternative sibling tool or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond those two exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.