Flatten JSON to dot paths or convert rows to CSV Free check: https://sigtap-outreach-api.sigtap.workers.dev/preview/tools/json = 200 demo sample, no wallet. Paid call: 402 challenge -> sign -> retry = settled on-chain. ($0.001 USDC on Base, x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | JSON string | |
| mode | No | flatten | csv (default flatten) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| flattened | Yes | ||
| leaf_count | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "flattened": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "leaf_count": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "mode": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "mode",
+ "leaf_count",
+ "flattened"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It exposes the free vs. paid behavior (402 challenge, sign, retry) and clarifies that the free check needs no wallet. However, it does not disclose return formats, side effects, or data handling beyond the basic workflow.
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?
The description is somewhat bloated with a URL and payment details. While relevant, it makes the text longer than necessary. The core functionality is stated first, but the extra pricing/URL info could be moved to a separate field, reducing clarity.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple tool: it states inputs (JSON), optional mode, and the general output (dot paths or CSV). However, it does not specify the exact output structure, error cases, or edge behaviors. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.
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 100% (both 'data' and 'mode' have descriptions). The description of 'mode' as 'flatten | csv (default flatten)' adds clear meaning beyond the type, and 'data' as 'JSON string' is straightforward. This exceeds the baseline for high coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs: 'Flatten JSON to dot paths' and 'convert rows to CSV'. This is unambiguous and easy to understand, making it distinct from typical sibling tools.
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?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. It mentions free check and paid call, but these are about pricing rather than usage context. No comparison or 'use this when' hints are given.
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.