Mint 1-32 IDs for agent job IDs and idempotency keys: UUID v4 (default), v7 or v1 (time-ordered), or ULID (format: ulid). v7 and ULID batches sort in mint order. Price $0.003 via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| format | No | uuid | |
| version | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / formatAdded value: +{
+ "default": "uuid",
+ "enum": [
+ "uuid",
+ "ulid"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / version / enumPrevious value: -[
- 1,
- 4
-]New value: +[
+ 1,
+ 4,
+ 7
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningful behavior: the 1-32 batch bound, the default format/version, and critically a price ($0.003 via x402), which signals a payment requirement the agent would otherwise not know. It omits rate limits, whether generated IDs are persisted, and any idempotency guarantee.
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?
Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and variants, then the ordering behavior, then cost. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.
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?
Covers formats, ordering semantics, and pricing well, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should also state the return shape (e.g. an array of ID strings) and clarify the format/version interaction. Those gaps leave the agent inferring part of the contract for a 3-parameter 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains that v7/v1 are time-ordered, that ULID is selected via 'format: ulid', and restates the 1-32 count bound. The interaction between 'format' and 'version' (e.g. whether version is ignored for ULID) is left unresolved.
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?
States a specific verb (mint) and resource (IDs), scopes the batch (1-32), and names the exact output variants (UUID v4/v7/v1, ULID). An agent can tell immediately this is an ID generator, distinct from hash/encode siblings like sha256 or base64.
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?
Names concrete use cases ('agent job IDs and idempotency keys') and flags that v7/ULID batches sort in mint order, which implicitly tells the agent when to prefer time-ordered variants. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or a direct v4-vs-v7 decision rule.
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.