JMT x402 MCP Server

text_diff

Compare two text strings to identify differences. Use this tool to detect changes between any two pieces of text.

Instructions

Compare two text strings. Price: $0.002/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": {
      "text1": "<text1>",
      "text2": "<text2>"
    },
    "name": "text_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text1`	Yes	First text
`text2`	Yes	Second text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so description is the sole source. It discloses the pricing model and payment method, but does not discuss other behaviors like idempotency, rate limits, or whether it is read-only.

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 concise with one sentence plus pricing. Every word is functional and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (two string inputs), the description is mostly adequate but lacks details on output format (e.g., plain diff output or detailed report), which may be needed for proper use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema has 100% description coverage with simple descriptions ('First text', 'Second text'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description specifies the tool compares two text strings, which aligns with the tool name 'text_diff'. However, it does not elaborate on the type of comparison (e.g., character-level diff), leaving some ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No usage guidelines provided; no indication of when to use this tool versus other text analysis tools among siblings (e.g., analyze, summarize).

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