sigtap Agent Tools

hash_text

SHA-256/384/512, hex, base64, base64url and CRC32 of a UTF-8 string Free check: https://sigtap-outreach-api.sigtap.workers.dev/preview/tools/hash = 200 demo sample, no wallet. Paid call: 402 challenge -> sign -> retry = settled on-chain. ($0.001 USDC on Base, x402)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	UTF-8 text to hash

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hex`	Yes
`crc32`	No
`base64`	Yes
`length`	Yes
`sha256`	Yes
`sha384`	No
`sha512`	No
`base64url`	No
`byte_length`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "base64": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "base64url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "byte_length": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "crc32": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "hex": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "length": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "sha256": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sha384": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sha512": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "length",
+    "sha256",
+    "hex",
+    "base64"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the free/paid call mechanism (free demo, paid via x402), which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects (though hashing is inherently read-only) or other operational constraints like rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is concise, front-loading the core hashing functionality and then adding necessary payment information. It is a single sentence but well-structured, with no redundant fluff, earning a high score for its efficient use of words.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter input and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is complete. It provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly, including the payment workflow details that are essential for execution.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (text) with a description ('UTF-8 text to hash'). The description adds no further detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool computes SHA-256/384/512, hex, base64, base64url, and CRC32 hashes of a UTF-8 string. This specific verb-noun pairing (hash text) and the enumeration of algorithms leave no ambiguity about the tool's purpose, and it is distinct from sibling tools like slugify or uuid_batch.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is so clearly defined that an agent would infer usage for hashing needs, but there is no explicit guidance or mention of alternatives, only implied usage.

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

All sigtap Agent 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.