Counts characters, words, sentences and paragraphs, estimates reading and speaking time, and lists the most frequent words. 0.001 USDC per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Input text (max 20,000 characters) | |
| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cost (0.001 USDC per call via x402), but does not explain that calls fail without payment proof, that the first call returns 402 instructions, or anything about output shape or rate/latency behavior.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the functional capability front-loaded and the pricing constraint appended. Nothing is repeated from the schema.
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 stateless, single-input utility with a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient — it even enumerates the metrics returned despite there being no output schema. A brief note on the payment-gated call sequence would close the remaining gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters — including the two-step x402 payment flow for paymentProof — are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the cost, so baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb and enumerates exactly what it computes: character/word/sentence/paragraph counts, reading and speaking time, and top frequent words. No sibling tool in the list does text statistics, so the agent can route here unambiguously.
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?
Usage is only implied by the purpose statement; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of related siblings (e.g., ai_summarize) that might compete with it. The pricing sentence is cost information rather than selection guidance.
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.