Repairs truncated or malformed LLM JSON outputs (trailing commas, markdown fences, single quotes).
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one inspects wallet status and billing, the other repairs malformed JSON. Their descriptions cross-reference each other helpfully without causing confusion, and an agent can easily tell which tool to use for which task.
Both tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_agent_wallet_status, repair_malformed_json). There are no deviations or mixed conventions.
With only 2 tools, the set feels thin for a server whose name advertises both JSON repair and schema validation. While the count is not extreme, it is borderline too few to fully support the apparent scope.
The server name explicitly includes 'Schema Validator', but no tool provides schema validation. The surface covers JSON repair and wallet status, but a significant advertised operation is missing, creating a gap that could cause agent failures for validation tasks.
Inspect an agent's account ledger: remaining free trial calls (out of 5), prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, and total LLM tokens saved. WHEN TO USE: Call before a batch of paid tool executions or after completing a Stripe or USDC top-up to confirm your balance. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use to process web content, execute marketplace tools, or submit payments; use the other tools on this server for execution. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Omit agent_id to inspect the default trial account derived from your client IP, or pass your explicit agent_id or agd_pass_ session key to check a specific funded wallet. Free and read-only: never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call. Example: get_agent_wallet_status(agent_id='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Optional Agent ID or agd_pass_ session key to inspect. Omit to check the default wallet derived from your client IP. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call, and the default wallet is derived from the caller's client IP. It does not discuss rate limits or caching, but the cost/free-trial guarantee is meaningful behavioral disclosure.
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?
Front-loaded with the ledger contents, then structured WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / PARAMETER INTERACTIONS / Example. The labeled sections make it scannable, though the repetition of the read-only guarantee and the worked example add a little bulk.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional, yet the description still names the key fields. With a single optional parameter, no nested objects, and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
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 the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by naming the agd_pass_ session-key form and framing the two modes as an interaction (omit for IP-derived trial account vs. pass explicit agent_id/session key for a funded wallet), which aids selection even though the schema states the omit behavior.
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 (inspect) and resource (agent's account ledger) and enumerates exactly what is returned: trial calls out of 5, prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, tokens saved. This clearly separates it from the sibling web-content tools (distill_webpage, extract_structured_data, recon_webpage_skeleton), which operate on webpages rather than wallet state.
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?
Explicit WHEN TO USE (before paid tool batches, after a Stripe or USDC top-up) and WHEN NOT TO USE (not for processing web content, executing marketplace tools, or submitting payments). The exclusion clause routes the agent back to the other server tools for execution, so the alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Repairs truncated or malformed LLM JSON outputs (trailing commas, markdown fences, single quotes) so multi-agent pipelines never crash. WHEN TO USE: Call repair_malformed_json when your task requires deterministic json-repair analysis for raw_json; use get_agent_wallet_status to check your remaining free trial quota or prepaid balance. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for unrelated domains or binary media. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Pass the target raw_json as a non-empty string; omit agent_id and tx_hash during your 5 free trial calls, or supply agent_id (agd_pass_...) / tx_hash for paid execution. Read-only and idempotent; results are cached for 1 hour (<5ms cache hit). $0.002 per call. Pricing: the first 5 calls per agent_id are free and failed calls are never charged. After 5 calls, the tool returns a payment-required quote (not a fatal error) with a $2 Stripe top-up link and Base/Solana USDC addresses; complete payment, then retry with your agd_pass_ key in agent_id or pass tx_hash. Example: repair_malformed_json(raw_json='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx_hash | No | Optional on-chain Base Mainnet (0x...) or Solana SPL USDC transaction hash. Omit unless settling an individual call directly on-chain instead of using an agd_pass_ key in agent_id. | |
| agent_id | No | Optional agent identifier or prepaid agd_pass_ session key. Omit during your 5 free trial calls to use an ID automatically derived from your client IP, or pass your agd_pass_ key after topping up. | |
| raw_json | Yes | Malformed, truncated, or markdown-wrapped JSON string to deterministically repair. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: 1-hour result caching with <5ms hits, failed calls never charged, and that exhaustion returns a payment-required quote rather than a fatal error, plus how to resume with agent_id or tx_hash. This is real operational 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 lead sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the body is bloated: the WHEN TO USE line restates the tool name and function tautologically ('when your task requires deterministic json-repair analysis for raw_json'), the payment flow repeats what the agent_id/tx_hash schema descriptions already say, and the trailing example adds nothing.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers pricing, trial limits, caching, error-vs-quote behavior, and recovery steps. For a paid, cached repair utility nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning about parameter interaction: raw_json must be non-empty, and agent_id/tx_hash should be omitted during free trial calls or supplied for paid execution. That clarifies the intended sequencing of the three params beyond their individual schema docs.
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 (repairs) and resource (malformed/truncated LLM JSON) and enumerates concrete failure classes it handles: trailing commas, markdown fences, single quotes. An agent immediately knows what it does and can tell it apart from the wallet-status sibling.
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?
Explicit WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE sections, and it names the alternative (get_agent_wallet_status) for quota checking. The exclusion ('unrelated domains or binary media') is fairly generic boilerplate rather than a precise boundary, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_agent_wallet_statusrepair_malformed_jsonRepairs truncated or malformed LLM JSON outputs (trailing commas, markdown fences, unquoted keys).
Repair broken JSON from LLM output and validate it against a JSON Schema.
Repair malformed JSON from LLM/agent output; optional JSON Schema coercion. Free + x402 paid.
Repair broken LLM JSON and check it against a JSON Schema. Flags cut-off output. Free trial.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.