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

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

Text chunker for RAG

text_chunk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Split long text into sentence/paragraph-aware chunks of N characters or tokens with overlap, ready for embeddings. 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": "text_chunk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`size`	No	chunk size (default 1000)
`text`	Yes	text (≤500k chars)
`unit`	No	chars \| tokens
`overlap`	No	overlap (default 100)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description earns credit for disclosing the operational constraint the annotations don't: a 10 calls/day free tier, then $0.001/call via x402 or X-API-Key. It also discloses the underlying hosting endpoint. It stops short of describing chunk-boundary edge behavior (e.g. what happens when a paragraph exceeds size).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then the billing constraint, then provenance - three compact sentences with no filler. The pricing detail is dense but every clause carries an actionable fact.

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 read-only, idempotent transformer with a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description supplies what structured fields can't: monetization model and rate ceiling. Minor gap is the absence of any note on how sentence-awareness interacts with an over-long single sentence.

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 size, unit, overlap and the 500k-char input cap are all already documented in structured form. The description only restates "N characters or tokens with overlap", adding no new syntax, defaults, or interaction rules (such as whether overlap counts against size). Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Split long text") plus the differentiating qualifiers ("sentence/paragraph-aware chunks of N characters or tokens with overlap, ready for embeddings"). An agent can immediately tell this apart from text_stats or text_diff without inspecting the schema.

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?

The phrase "ready for embeddings" implies the RAG use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named or excluded. Usage is inferable from the purpose statement rather than stated.

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?