Cryptographically random passwords with chosen length and character sets, plus entropy in bits. 0.001 USDC per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| length | No | ||
| symbols | No | ||
| paymentProof | No | Payment proof: USDC tx hash on Polygon or Base (0x...) or Solana tx signature. Omit on the first call to receive the 402 payment instructions, pay, then call again with the proof. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two meaningful traits that structured data lacks: that randomness is cryptographic (a security-quality claim) and the per-call cost of 0.001 USDC via x402. It does not explain the first-call-returns-402 flow or the output shape, which are significant gaps for an unannotated tool.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero waste; the capability is front-loaded and the pricing constraint follows. Nothing in it could be cut without losing information.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain what is returned; 'entropy in bits' helps but the shape of the password list (driven by count) is unstated. Combined with 25% schema coverage and no annotations, the definition is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about both the return value and the payment sequence.
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 only 25% (only paymentProof is documented), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for length and symbols ('chosen length and character sets') but says nothing about 'count' (how many passwords are returned) or the ranges/defaults, leaving a real gap.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('cryptographically random passwords') plus the configurable dimensions (length, character sets) and an output property (entropy in bits). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling password_breach_check by the 'generate' vs 'check' framing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as password_breach_check, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The pricing clause hints at a paid flow but gives no operational guidance on the call sequence, which is only discoverable from the schema's paymentProof field.
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.