Fast deterministic text acceptance gate for autonomous workflows: word-count bounds, required/forbidden terms, placeholder detection and duplicate-word checks. [PAID: $0.025 USDC per call via x402]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| max_words | No | ||
| min_words | No | ||
| required_terms | No | ||
| forbidden_terms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the gate is deterministic and fast and that each call costs $0.025 USDC via x402, which is real behavioral context. However it never says what happens on pass vs fail, whether it throws, blocks, or returns a verdict, and no output schema exists to cover that. Adequate but with a real gap around outcome semantics for a 'gate'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One dense sentence that leads with the core purpose and capabilities, followed by a bracketed pricing note. Nothing is wasted and the important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description must do heavy lifting. It covers the check types and cost but omits the return/verdict format and parameter-level behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a validation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map word-count bounds and required/forbidden terms to the corresponding parameters, but leaves matching semantics (case sensitivity, substring vs whole word) undefined, and the advertised placeholder/duplicate-word checks have no corresponding parameters, creating ambiguity about what is configurable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a concrete verb (acceptance gate) and resource (text), then enumerates the specific checks performed: word-count bounds, required/forbidden terms, placeholder detection, duplicate-word checks. This is well beyond a tautology. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling text-quality-gate-YW5_EQ, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied via 'for autonomous workflows' and 'fast deterministic', which signals the intended context but gives no when-to-use vs when-not, no prerequisites, and no guidance on choosing between this and the near-identical sibling gate. An agent can infer it validates text, but not when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
