Agent Tools (x402 pay-per-call)

format_skeleton

Cross-market content skeleton for agents: Xiaohongshu/Douyin formulas ↔ TikTok/Reels/Substack/WeChat essay beats. Input {market?, direction?, niche?, formula_id?}. Returns original structural formulas (not scraped posts) plus bridge maps CN↔EN. Free tier ?trial=1. Costs $0.003 USDC per call via x402 (Base preferred, or Solana); no charge on errors. Free tier: pass free_trial=true (10 calls/day). Example output: {"market":"xiaohongshu","formulas":[{"id":"xhs_list","title_pattern":"N个[细分领域]推荐"}],"bridges":[{"id":"xhs_list_to_tt_ad"}]}

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "format_skeleton"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`niche`	No	optional filter e.g. tools, skincare, relationships
`market`	No	xiaohongshu \| tiktok_reels \| substack_essay \| wechat_gongzhonghao \| all (default all)
`direction`	No	cn_to_en \| en_to_cn \| both (default both)
`formula_id`	No	optional single formula id e.g. xhs_list
`free_trial`	No	set true to use the free tier (10 calls/day) without payment
`x402_payment`	No	base64 x402 payment payload; omit to receive payment requirements

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cost model ($0.003 USDC per call via x402, Base preferred or Solana), the no-charge-on-errors policy, and the free-tier cap of 10 calls/day. It also clarifies provenance ('not scraped posts'), which preempts a likely agent misconception. Missing: whether the call is read-only/idempotent, and what an unpaid response actually looks like beyond 'payment requirements'.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded and information-dense: markets, return shape, and pricing all appear early, and the example output is compact and illustrative. It is marred by redundancy (free tier stated twice, once as an inconsistent '?trial=1') and by a schema-restating 'Input {market?, direction?...}' fragment that consumes space without adding meaning.

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?

For a six-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials: what comes back (formulas + bridges), a sample response, the payment flow, and the free-tier path. The '?trial=1' mismatch is the one element that could cause a wrong invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already defines all six parameters with their allowed values. The description adds a little (free_trial's 10/day allowance, omitting x402_payment to obtain requirements) but also muddies it with a stray '?trial=1' query-parameter reference that does not match the free_trial boolean in the schema.

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 names the concrete artifact produced: 'original structural formulas... plus bridge maps CN↔EN' across named markets (Xiaohongshu/Douyin ↔ TikTok/Reels/Substack/WeChat). An agent can tell this is a formula/template catalog rather than a scraper or summarizer. It stops short of a clean verb-first statement, opening with a noun phrase instead of 'Retrieves...', but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Payment-path guidance is genuinely useful: omitting x402_payment returns payment requirements, and free_trial=true unlocks 10 calls/day at no cost. However, there is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over alternatives (e.g. summarize/url_to_markdown) or when-not to use it; usage must be inferred from the niche/market filter hints.

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

All Agent Tools (x402 pay-per-call) 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?