markdown
Convert raw HTML to clean, LLM-ready markdown. Strips nav/script/style noise. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/markdown]
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | Raw HTML |
x402-services
by ai.firmbrain
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it strips nav/script/style noise, which is a key behavioral trait. It also notes it's a paid tool with price and endpoint. However, it does not mention any other side effects or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the pricing/endpoint info into a secondary mention.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: purpose, noise stripping, pricing, and endpoint. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional clarification.
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?
There is only one parameter ('html') with schema description 'Raw HTML'. The tool description does not add any further meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Convert'), the input ('raw HTML'), and the output ('clean, LLM-ready markdown'). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings, none of which perform HTML-to-markdown conversion.
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 does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. It provides no exclusions or context about suitability, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
Tool Count2/5
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
Completeness4/5
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.