ScorpTech x402 API

Text Wrap

text_wrap

Read-onlyIdempotent

Wrap text to a measure in Helvetica or Helvetica-Bold. Hard breaks are LF, CR, or CRLF. Inside a paragraph, spaces collapse to one and leading and trailing spaces are dropped. A word moves to the next line when it does not fit. A word wider than the whole measure breaks between characters, and those lines are marked broken. The width of each line uses the same AFM rounding as text-width. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/text-wrap

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": {
      "text": "<text>",
      "width": "<width>"
    },
    "name": "text_wrap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`font`	No		helvetica
`size`	No		12
`text`	Yes
`width`	Yes	Measure in points

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description still adds real value: the paid-call model ($0.001 USDC per successful call via x402 on Solana), the HTTPS equivalent endpoint, and deterministic edge-case behavior (over-wide words break mid-character and those lines are flagged broken). It does not mention failure/refund behavior or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then packs the line-breaking semantics into short declarative sentences; the pricing/endpoint sentence is dense but necessary information. No filler.

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?

The description covers input semantics and edge-case wrapping behavior, and there is no output schema, yet it never states the return shape (e.g., array of lines plus broken-line flags) even though 'marked broken' hints at it. The unexplained 'size' parameter leaves a real gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'width' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does clarify the font enum choices (Helvetica vs Helvetica-Bold) and that width is a measure in points, but it never explains 'size' (a string defaulting to '12', presumably point size) or the 8000-character text cap. Partial compensation only.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Wrap text to a measure in Helvetica or Helvetica-Bold.' It is clearly a typesetting/line-breaking operation, distinct from the numeric siblings, and it names text-width as its rounding reference. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like text_fit, text_block, or text_ellipsis.

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 wrapping rules imply the use case (produce hard-broken lines at a given measure), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over text_fit, text_block, or text_ellipsis, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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

All ScorpTech x402 API tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?