Educational public network metrics snapshot (mempool fees in sat/vB, difficulty, Tor, Nostr sample). No asset prices or trading signals. 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 transparency burden. It conveys that the tool is public, snapshot-like, and educational-only, which implies a read-only, low-risk operation. However, it does not state return format, side effects, or any operational boundaries beyond the disclaimers.
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 core content is front-loaded and clear, but the disclaimer stack is repetitive: 'Educational only', 'Not financial advice', 'Not an FSP/CASP', 'DYOR', and 'not recommendations' all reinforce the same point. It could be tightened without losing meaning.
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 zero-parameter public snapshot with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it says what data is provided, what is excluded, and how the output should be interpreted. Only an explicit return format or schema reference is missing, but its absence is minor here.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds value by specifying exactly what metrics are included, which exceeds the baseline expected for a parameterless tool.
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 deliverable, 'public network metrics snapshot', and enumerates concrete contents: mempool fees in sat/vB, difficulty, Tor, and a Nostr sample. It also explicitly excludes asset prices and trading signals, which differentiates it from listing or price-oriented sibling tools.
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?
It clearly positions the tool as appropriate for educational network-metrics use and explicitly states it is not for asset prices, trading signals, or financial recommendations. It does not name a specific alternative sibling for those needs, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.