v1_memory_putStores a value in memory under a specified key and owner, writing the record through a paid x402 route. Use it to persist keyed data for later retrieval.
Memory Put
Remote route: POST /v1/memory/put (0.10 USD x402/base/usdc on eip155:8453).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| value | 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 that this is not read-only, not idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context that the call is remote and costs 0.10 USD via x402 on a specific chain, but it does not explain overwrite semantics, key/owner scoping, or what a successful write changes.
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 text is short and front-loads the tool name, but the first line merely repeats the title and the second line is the only substantive content. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise for a three-parameter mutation tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a paid remote write tool with three undocumented parameters, the description omits the core purpose, parameter meaning, and usage context, leaving major gaps.
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 three parameters and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it says nothing about key, owner, or value. An agent cannot tell from the definition what those parameters mean or how they should be supplied.
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 ('Memory Put') and adds only the remote route. It never states plainly what the tool does with memory, such as storing or overwriting a value under a key, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling v1_memory_get.
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_get or any other sibling. The route and payment detail tell the agent how the call is billed, but not when the call is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.