[Web] Expand a shortened/redirecting URL: follow the redirect chain and return every hop plus the final destination. Each hop is SSRF-validated. Costs $0.002. Safe way to see where an untrusted link goes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: follows the full redirect chain, SSRF-validates each hop, costs $0.002, and is safe for untrusted links. It does not mention failure modes, rate limits, or output format details, but covers the main behavioral traits.
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?
Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and concise details. Every word adds value—no redundancy. The structure is optimal for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers core functionality, safety, and cost. However, it does not specify the return structure (e.g., array of hops with URLs), which an agent would need to handle the output. Adequate but not complete.
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?
Only one parameter ('url') with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies its purpose ('Expand a shortened/redirecting URL') but provides no format, constraints, or examples. This does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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's purpose: 'Expand a shortened/redirecting URL: follow the redirect chain and return every hop plus the final destination.' The verb 'expand' and resource 'shortened/redirecting URL' are specific, and the tool's uniqueness (handling redirects) distinguishes it from siblings.
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 notes it is a 'Safe way to see where an untrusted link goes,' indicating usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like 'web_extract' or 'page_meta,' which could be considered for non-redirect URLs.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple x402 transaction verification tools (payment_proof, settlement_assurance, tx_status) and multiple summarization tools (summarize_url, tldr_text). However, descriptions provide enough detail to differentiate them, though an agent could still be confused.
Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun patterns (e.g., summarize_url, generate_uuid) with noun phrases (e.g., base64, dns_lookup) and inconsistent prefixes (e.g., base_token_info vs base_allowance vs base64). The x402_* group is consistent, but overall naming lacks a unified pattern.
With 49 tools, the server is very heavy. While it aims to be a broad utility server, this number exceeds typical well-scoped servers (3-15 tools) and risks being overwhelming for agents, especially given the mix of unrelated domains.
The server covers a wide range of utilities (crypto, AI, web, dev, x402 payments) but lacks depth in any single area. For instance, there are many read-only tools but few state-changing operations beyond x402. Gaps like file handling or database access are expected given its scope.