MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit

CSV ↔ JSON converter

csv_json_convert

Read-onlyIdempotent

CSV to JSON (auto delimiter, headers, typed values, error rows) or JSON array to CSV. Free: 10 calls/day; then $0.001/call via x402 (MCP params._meta["x402/payment"] or HTTP) or X-API-Key credits. [served by tools.moneytools.dev]

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": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "csv_json_convert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`input`	Yes	CSV text or JSON array
`delimiter`	No	delimiter (auto)
`direction`	No	csv-to-json \| json-to-csv (auto)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description need not restate safety. It does add real value beyond them: auto delimiter detection, header handling, typed value inference, error-row reporting, and a concrete cost/rate-limit model (10 free calls/day, then $0.001/call via x402 or X-API-Key). It stops short of explaining what an 'error row' looks like or how typing is decided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the payment/rate-limit detail following. The pricing sentence is dense (x402, _meta path, X-API-Key credits) but is necessary information for an agent that must anticipate a paywall rather than waste a failing call.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described. Coverage of both conversion directions, auto-detection defaults, and the cost model is solid for a three-parameter tool; only edge-case behavior (malformed CSV, size limits, error-row semantics) is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the auto defaults for delimiter and direction. The description confirms those auto behaviors but adds no syntax, format, or override details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and both resources — 'CSV to JSON' and 'JSON array to CSV' — plus the notable handling features (auto delimiter, headers, typed values, error rows). The format-specific framing makes it distinguishable from format-conversion siblings like xml_json_convert or yaml_json_convert, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the format names rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for CSV/JSON interop. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no guidance on picking a direction versus relying on auto-detection, and no mention of input size limits or alternatives for other formats.

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

All MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit 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?