Ends With Vowel: Checks whether the supplied text ends with a vowel and returns a boolean 🆓 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-ends-with-vowel"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | ||
| input | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / input / descriptionRemoved value: -"Input to process"Input schema / properties / text / descriptionRemoved value: -"Text to process"Input schema / properties / inputAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Input to process",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / textAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Text 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 disclosure burden. It usefully adds that the result is a boolean and notes the payment model (5 free trial calls per signed wallet), but omits behaviorally relevant details such as vowel set, case sensitivity, and handling of empty/non-letter input.
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 short sentence leading with the purpose, followed by a compact pricing note. Nothing is padded, though the pricing emoji is not essential to invoking the tool.
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 trivial predicate tool with no output schema, disclosing the boolean return is adequate. However, the unresolved two-parameter ambiguity ('text' vs 'input') and missing edge-case behavior mean an agent still lacks what it needs to call it confidently.
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 0% and the schema exposes two string parameters ('text' and 'input'), yet the description only refers vaguely to 'the supplied text'. It does not clarify which parameter is actually consumed or how the two relate, leaving a genuine ambiguity for the agent.
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 states a specific verb ('Checks whether') and resource ('the supplied text ends with a vowel'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling x402-starts-with-vowel, though the name encodes that distinction.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as x402-starts-with-vowel or x402-ends-with-any. Usage is only inferable from the one-line purpose.
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.