rewriteRewrite text to a requested tone or format (professional, concise, plain-language) without changing meaning. Price: 0.05 USDC per call (x402, Base). Resource: https://api.exo-trust.com/execute/rewrite. Returns the payment challenge unless already settled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| style | No | ||
| max_words | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions payment challenge and pricing, but not safety aspects like side effects or data modification. Since annotations are absent, some behavioral info is provided but not complete.
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?
Short and front-loaded with purpose. Pricing and resource info are extra but concise.
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?
Provides enough for a simple rewriting task: output is implied to be rewritten text, and payment challenge is mentioned. No output schema, but description covers essentials.
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?
Describes style indirectly via examples, but does not explain max_words. Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate, but only partially.
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?
States the specific verb 'rewrite', the resource 'text', and the target outcome (tone/format change without meaning change). Distinct from siblings like proofread or summarize.
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?
Implied usage: when rewriting is needed. No explicit comparison to alternatives or conditions.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but edgar_financials and edgar_report overlap heavily, with the report apparently building on the same financial data. The three registry lookups (sanctions, VAT, LEI) are distinct, and the text-processing tools are separable.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use bare verbs (classify, extract, proofread, rewrite, summarize, translate), some use verb_noun (check_sanctions, lookup_lei, validate_vat, code_explain), and others use domain-based names (clinical_dd, edgar_financials, edgar_report, synergy_discovery). No single consistent convention is applied.
14 tools is within the reasonable range and each covers a distinct specialist area, but the set feels slightly broad and includes a few near-duplicates (edgar_financials vs edgar_report). It is not excessive, though tightening could improve focus.
The catalog covers a wide range of domains: sanctions, VAT, LEI, SEC filings, clinical trials, code analysis, text transformation, and discovery. It includes a discovery tool to enumerate specialists, which helps. Minor gaps like missing update/delete-style operations are not expected for a read-only specialist API, so coverage is strong.