Convert text into spoken-word MP3 audio. Returns a job ticket for asynchronous processing; poll with x402_poll_job to retrieve the result.
Text-to-speech: spoken-word mp3 ($0.25 USDC/call). ASYNC — returns a job ticket; poll with x402_poll_job (job_type 'media').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to speak | |
| voice | No | Voice id (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async behavior (returns a job ticket), the output format (mp3), and the monetary cost ($0.25 USDC/call). This is transparent for an operation that generates a file without destructive effects.
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 entire description is a single, information-dense sentence. It leads with the purpose, then covers cost, async behavior, and polling instruction — every word earns its place.
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 simple TTS tool, it covers the essentials: output format, cost, async workflow, and how to retrieve the result. It doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, but those are likely inherited from the broader x402 system and not unique to this 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 description coverage is 100% — the schema already explains 'text' and 'voice'. The description adds the cost and async context but doesn't introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 performs text-to-speech, producing spoken-word mp3 files. It names the resource (spoken-word mp3) and differentiates itself from siblings like x402_image or x402_chat by its specific function.
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 explicitly notes the async nature and instructs to poll with x402_poll_job, providing clear follow-up steps. It doesn't mention when not to use it, but for a single TTS tool, this is sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.