JMT x402 MCP Server

hash

Compute cryptographic hash of text using SHA-256, SHA-512, or MD5 algorithms.

Instructions

Hash text (SHA-256, SHA-512, MD5). Price: $0.001/call via x402 (USDC on Base mainnet).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "hash"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`algo`	No	Algorithm (default: sha256)
`text`	Yes	Text to hash

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists algorithms and pricing but omits important details like output format (e.g., hex string), error handling for invalid algorithms, case sensitivity, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral cues.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—only three clauses—and front-loads the core action and available algorithms. Every word serves a purpose; there is no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple hashing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core functionality and pricing. A minor gap is the lack of return value specification (e.g., hex string), but this is partially mitigated by the tool's inherent simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds value by explicitly listing the three valid algorithms (SHA-256, SHA-512, MD5), which the schema only hints at via the default. This helps the agent understand valid inputs beyond the schema's minimal info.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: hash text using specific algorithms (SHA-256, SHA-512, MD5). It is concise and distinctly differentiates from sibling tools which are analysis, search, and data retrieval tools, none of which perform hashing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when hashing text is needed, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are no sibling hashing tools, so the context is clear, but the absence of usage constraints or prerequisites keeps the score at a minimum viable level.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.