Return CryptoDecentral’s canonical educational fence and legal URLs. Educational only. Not financial advice. Not an FSP/CASP. DYOR. Listings and tools are not buy, sell, custody, or swap recommendations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns canonical URLs, that the content is educational only, and that it is not financial advice or a recommendation mechanism. It does not mention authentication, errors, or output format, but for a zero-parameter read-only getter these gaps are minor.
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 description front-loads the primary action ('Return ... URLs') and then adds necessary legal context. The series of short legal phrases is compact and relevant to the disclaimer nature of the tool, though slightly repetitive.
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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and clarifies the legal and educational context. It could specify the exact return shape, but the low complexity makes that a minor omission.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The empty schema already provides complete coverage, and the description appropriately focuses on output and context rather than inputs.
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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource: CryptoDecentral's canonical educational and legal URLs, so an agent can tell this is the disclaimer-related tool. It is distinct from siblings like get_listing or search_content because it is the only tool focused on disclaimers and legal URLs. The phrase 'educational fence' is slightly opaque, but the overall purpose is still clear.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated: an agent can infer this tool should be called whenever disclaimer or legal URLs are needed. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, and the legal boilerplate is more about content than selection criteria.
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.
list_directory and search_directory accept nearly identical filters (q, category, tag), so their boundaries blur. The get_/list_/search_ split is otherwise clear, and the meta endpoints (disclaimer, site_posture, llms_map) are distinct though thematically related.
All tool names consistently follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern using only get_, list_, and search_. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or unpredictable naming.
Twelve tools is within a reasonable range for a read-only educational content server. However, the overlap between list_directory and search_directory suggests the surface could be slightly trimmed without losing core functionality.
The server covers directory browsing, educational content listing and searching, metrics, and site-positioning meta endpoints well. Missing per-item getters for guides and notes is a minor gap since lists include URLs and search covers those types; write operations are not expected for an educational-only server.