v1_memory_getRetrieves a stored memory record by key and owner through the paid POST /v1/memory/get x402 route, returning the memory data and settlement details.
Memory Get
Remote route: POST /v1/memory/get (0.05 USD x402/base/usdc on eip155:8453).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| owner | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by naming the remote endpoint and the x402 payment amount, but it does not explain authentication, payment flow, or what the operation does to memory.
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?
It is short and front-loads the remote route and price, so it is not bloated. However, the first line repeats the title and the overall text is under-specified rather than informative.
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 output schema can carry return-value details and annotations carry some safety hints, but for a two-parameter memory getter the description still omits the core purpose and the meaning of key/owner. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
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 has two parameters, key and owner, with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter, so it provides no meaning for what 'key' or 'owner' represent in the memory lookup.
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 mostly restates the title/name ('Memory Get') and provides the remote route. It never states that it retrieves a stored memory entry, nor how it differs from the sibling v1_memory_put.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus v1_memory_put or any other sibling. The route and payment line identifies transport and cost but does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.