VALUE Verdicts

Contextual pairing (places and names, related)

contextual_pairing

Read-only

Relates 2-8 world places and up to 8 named entities, deterministically. For each place: its ROAST-78 tile card and element. For every pair: elemental dignity (Golden Dawn rules: strengthening, friendly, opposing or neutral), same suit, lattice step, great-circle distance and initial bearing, and the card of the midpoint tile. Each name is turned into a card sequence with the Anagramic alphabet cipher (A-V = Major Arcana, W-Z = the four Aces), with its dominant element and its dignity with each place. For games, matchmaking, travel stories and multi-location worldbuilding. Includes a receipt hash. Price: $0.02 USDC per call after 25 free calls per day.

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": {
      "places": "<places>"
    },
    "name": "contextual_pairing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`places`	Yes	2 to 8 places. GET: flat "lat,lon,lat,lon".
`_payment`	No	x402 v2 payment: base64 PaymentPayload, as you would send in the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header. Only needed after the free allowance is used.
`entities`	No	Optional. Up to 8 names (people, characters, places, brands), max 64 characters each. GET: comma-separated.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: deterministic pairing, per-place tile card and element, pair-level dignity rules, distance/bearing, cipher details, receipt hash, and pricing with a free-tier limit. This is exactly the kind of extra disclosure that helps an agent understand cost and output shape.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured: purpose first, then output details, then use cases, then payment terms. Every sentence carries distinct information, and jargon like ROAST-78 and Golden Dawn is necessary domain vocabulary rather than filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex computational tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers both returned fields and the payment model. It gives the agent enough to know what will be produced and what calling it costs, leaving no major gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters and their constraints. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each place yields (ROAST-78 tile card and element) and what each entity name becomes (card sequence via the Anagramic cipher). This is useful but does not fully redefine parameter handling beyond the schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Relates 2-8 world places and up to 8 named entities, deterministically.' This is not a restatement of the tool name; it clearly specifies the operation and scope. No sibling tool shares this pairing behavior, so an agent can distinguish it easily.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly names use cases: 'For games, matchmaking, travel stories and multi-location worldbuilding.' That gives clear positive guidance for selection. However, it does not state when to avoid this tool or name any alternative sibling for related tasks, so it falls 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.

All VALUE Verdicts 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?