[AI] Zero-shot classification of text into caller-supplied labels; the result is validated back into your label set so you can route on it. Costs $0.002.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| labels | Yes | Comma-separated candidate labels (2-20) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses AI, costs $0.002, and validates results back into the user's label set. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
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 description is two sentences long with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, outcome, and cost.
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 tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers key aspects: zero-shot classification, validation, routing use case, and cost. Could be more explicit about validation meaning, but overall meets needs.
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?
Schema coverage is 50% (only 'labels' has a description). The tool description mentions 'caller-supplied labels' but does not add further detail about the 'text' parameter or clarify constraints like format or maximum length beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the action (zero-shot classification) and the resource (text into caller-supplied labels). It differentiates from siblings like moderate_text and embed_text by specifying the classification use case and validation into a label set for routing.
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 usage for routing decisions ('so you can route on it') and mentions cost as a consideration, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like moderate_text or embed_text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple x402 transaction verification tools (payment_proof, settlement_assurance, tx_status) and multiple summarization tools (summarize_url, tldr_text). However, descriptions provide enough detail to differentiate them, though an agent could still be confused.
Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun patterns (e.g., summarize_url, generate_uuid) with noun phrases (e.g., base64, dns_lookup) and inconsistent prefixes (e.g., base_token_info vs base_allowance vs base64). The x402_* group is consistent, but overall naming lacks a unified pattern.
With 49 tools, the server is very heavy. While it aims to be a broad utility server, this number exceeds typical well-scoped servers (3-15 tools) and risks being overwhelming for agents, especially given the mix of unrelated domains.
The server covers a wide range of utilities (crypto, AI, web, dev, x402 payments) but lacks depth in any single area. For instance, there are many read-only tools but few state-changing operations beyond x402. Gaps like file handling or database access are expected given its scope.