Agent Kiosk

x402_ping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Test x402 v2/v1 wallet settlement on Base Mainnet with a $0.001 USDC ping, measure latency, and receive an echoed message after payment confirms.

Instructions

Ultra-low-cost ($0.001 USDC) x402 v2 & v1 wallet verification ping, payment settlement test, latency check, and round-trip echo endpoint on Base Mainnet.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "x402_ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	No	Optional message string to echo back upon verified settlement

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.5.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds material facts beyond them: the exact cost ($0.001 USDC), supported protocol versions (v2 and v1), and the target network (Base Mainnet). It stops short of stating wallet/auth prerequisites for paying the fee or what a failed settlement returns.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the cost, the most decision-relevant fact, and packs versions, network, and capabilities without filler. Dense but not padded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description should say more about what a call returns (echo payload, settlement confirmation, latency figure) and whether the caller must supply an x402-funded wallet. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the payment mechanics needed to invoke it correctly are left implicit.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines it. The phrase 'round-trip echo endpoint' reinforces the message parameter's role but adds no format, length, or default guidance beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names concrete verbs and resources: wallet verification, payment settlement test, latency check, and round-trip echo, on Base Mainnet. It is far more specific than a tautology, though bundling four capabilities into one phrase makes the primary purpose slightly diffuse. No sibling tool overlaps, so sibling differentiation is unnecessary.

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 mention of 'payment settlement test' and 'latency check' implies a diagnostic/verification use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or what alternatives exist for the sibling tasks. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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