r0x-os

Chat with the r0x agent

chat

Send a message to the r0x agent and receive its reply. Each interaction costs $0.01 USDG.

Instructions

Sends a message to the r0x agent and returns its reply. Costs $0.01 USDG.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: the cost of $0.01 USDG. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., setup), or error behaviors, leaving some transparency gaps for a chat tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the action, target, result, and cost with no redundant words. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states what it does, the result, and importantly notes the cost. It could be improved by mentioning whether setup is required or what happens on failure, but these are minor omissions given the trivial nature of the operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter 'message' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the tool description itself says 'Sends a message', which directly connects the message parameter to its purpose. It adds some meaning, but not much beyond the parameter name; it does not specify format or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Sends' and the resource 'a message to the r0x agent', along with the outcome 'returns its reply'. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools, which are all financial operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: when you want to communicate with the r0x agent. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites, but the distinct purpose compared to siblings makes the use case implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server