Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Verse by A-to-Mind

by io.github.atomeam
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Translate text (0.05 USDC, x402)

paid_translate

Verse translates text between 100 languages (Meta's many-to-many model on Workers AI, MyMemory as the fallback). One call, one translation of up to the route's character limit. Costs 0.05 USDC on Base (eip155:8453) per call, paid with x402 over MCP: call it without payment to get the PaymentRequired terms in structuredContent, then call it again with the signed PaymentPayload in params._meta["x402/payment"]. The settlement comes back in result._meta["x402/payment-response"]. A call that cannot be done (bad input, the service busy) is never charged. The same service over HTTP: POST https://a-to-mind.com/api/x402/translate.

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>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "paid_translate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYestarget language code, like es
fromNosource language code, or auto
textYesthe text to translate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description goes well beyond them: exact price and chain (0.05 USDC on eip155:8453), the two-step x402 handshake, where the payment terms and settlement receipt appear, the fallback provider chain, a character-limit constraint, and the important billing guarantee that failed calls are never charged. That is precisely the behavioural context an agent needs before spending money.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by cost, then the payment mechanics, then the failure guarantee and HTTP equivalent — a logical order. It is dense but every sentence carries non-redundant information; minor parentheses and run-on clauses make it slightly harder to scan than it could be.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it does cover the payment terms in structuredContent and the settlement receipt in result._meta. It never states where the translated string itself appears in the result, which is the one thing an agent most needs to consume the response. Otherwise complete for a three-parameter paid tool.

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 three parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds only the constraint that text is bounded by 'the route's character limit'. It does not add language-code conventions, the auto-detect behaviour of 'from', or any format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource (translate text) plus scope: 100 languages, one call = one translation, bounded by a character limit. It also names the underlying models, which helps an agent understand the capability. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling skill_translate, so an agent must infer the paid/free split on its own.

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 description gives an explicit invocation protocol (call without payment to receive PaymentRequired terms, then retry with a signed PaymentPayload in params._meta), which is strong procedural guidance. But it never says when to choose this over skill_translate or the HTTP endpoint, and offers no exclusion criteria beyond 'one call, one translation'. Usage is implied 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 Verse by A-to-Mind toolsInspect
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