x402 agent toolkit: service finder, payment safety, Solana & web tools

by dev.workers.moneytools.x402-pay-precheck

Slug + safe filename

slugify

Read-onlyIdempotent

URL slug (accents removed; CJK kept or ASCII-only) and a filesystem-safe filename from any title. 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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "slugify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	title
`ascii`	No	true = ASCII only
`maxLength`	No	max length

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses concrete operational traits: a free quota of 10 calls/day, a per-call price, and the two payment channels (x402 via params._meta or HTTP header, X-API-Key credits). It also discloses transformation behavior (accents stripped, CJK preserved by default). Missing is what happens on maxLength overflow (truncate vs error) and how the two outputs are named in the response.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then the cost/payment detail an agent needs before calling a paid endpoint. No filler, though the bracketed host tag is noise for an agent and the payment clause is dense.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers the paid-endpoint mechanics that structured fields cannot express. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (truncation at maxLength, handling of empty or symbol-only input) for a three-parameter utility.

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. The description adds a small amount of meaning: default behavior removes accents and preserves CJK, while 'ascii' switches to ASCII-only output, which slightly clarifies the terse schema text 'true = ASCII only'.

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 specific deliverables ('URL slug ... and a filesystem-safe filename from any title'), so the verb and resource are unambiguous without opening the schema. It does not need to differentiate from a near-identical sibling, though it also does not state which sibling would handle adjacent formatting tasks.

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 only implied by the input ('from any title'); there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The payment/credit sentence tells the agent how to pay but not when this tool is the right choice over another formatting utility.

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

All x402 agent toolkit: service finder, payment safety, Solana & web tools 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?