Color Blend: Blends two hex or named colors by a 0-1 amount and returns the resulting hex color 🆓 5 free trial calls per signed wallet
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "x402-color-blend"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | No | ||
| b | No | ||
| amount | No | ||
| color1 | No | ||
| color2 | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / a / descriptionRemoved value: -"A to process"Input schema / properties / amount / descriptionRemoved value: -"Amount to process"Input schema / properties / b / descriptionRemoved value: -"B to process"Input schema / properties / color1 / descriptionRemoved value: -"Color1 to process"Input schema / properties / color2 / descriptionRemoved value: -"Color2 to process"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the billing model ('5 free trial calls per signed wallet') plus the return type (hex color). It says nothing about how named colors are resolved, what happens on invalid input, or whether blending is linear in a specific color space, which matters for a color-math tool.
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 tight sentence with the operation front-loaded, followed by the trial note. The emoji and trial boilerplate add noise but cost little.
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?
For a tool with 5 undocumented parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum disambiguate the duplicate parameter sets and specify accepted color formats. It leaves the single most consequential ambiguity (a/b vs color1/color2) unresolved.
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% across 5 string parameters, and the schema contains two competing naming pairs: a/b/amount and color1/color2. The description conveys the semantics ('two colors', 'amount 0-1') but never resolves which of the two sets is authoritative, leaving an agent unable to pick parameters confidently.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Blends two hex or named colors') and states the output ('returns the resulting hex color'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool computes. It does not distinguish itself from nearby color siblings such as x402-color-converter, x402-color-shade, or x402-color-tint, but the blend-by-amount operation is fairly self-identifying.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this over the many other color tools in the sibling list, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only context is the free-trial note, which says nothing about correct usage.
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.