Deg To Rad: Convert deg to rad. 🆓 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-deg-to-rad"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / value / descriptionRemoved value: -"Value to process"Input schema / properties / valueAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Value to process",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a commercial constraint ('5 free trial calls per signed wallet'), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about precision, rounding, error behavior for non-numeric input, or out-of-range values for what is a trivial but still computational 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?
Very short and front-loaded: the operation comes first and the promo note last. The opening 'Deg To Rad:' merely repeats the tool name, a small redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.
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 single-argument conversion with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input domain by implication and confirms the output unit. It falls short on input format and on disambiguating the duplicated sibling converters, which is the main risk for correct tool selection.
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?
There is a single parameter 'value' with 0% schema description coverage and no type guidance beyond 'string'. The description implies the parameter is an angle in degrees, which is some compensation, but it does not state the accepted format (numeric string, negative values, decimals), leaving an agent to guess for a 1-param tool with no schema documentation.
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 and resource ('Convert deg to rad'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling 'x402-degrees-to-radians' (or from 'x402-rad-to-deg'), so an agent cannot tell from the text which of the duplicate angle converters to pick.
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 use this instead of the sibling 'x402-degrees-to-radians', 'x402-radians-to-degrees', or the generic 'x402-angle-unit'. The only extra clause is a pricing/signup note, which does not help tool selection.
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.