Keyless web search for agents: pass a query, get a concise web-grounded answer plus the top source results (title, URL, snippet). Live web access, no API key or account needed. JSON response. [Paid: $0.008 USDC per call via x402 on Base; the calling client pays automatically.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query, 1-300 chars |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool is a live web search requiring no API key, returns a JSON response, and involves a cost ($0.008 USDC per call). It does not mention potential rate limits or caching behavior, but for a simple read-only search, the transparency is adequate.
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 is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with key details (pricing, no auth, output format). Every word adds value; no wasted content.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does (web search), input (query), output (answer and top results with snippet), authentication (keyless), and pricing. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'q' with a 1-300 character constraint. The description merely restates 'pass a query', adding no new semantic information beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 performs a web search ('Keyless web search for agents'), specifies the action ('pass a query, get a concise web-grounded answer plus the top source results'), and highlights its unique keyless nature. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like news-search or local-search, leaving some ambiguity for the agent about when to prefer this tool over specialized alternatives.
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 implies usage for general web queries by stating 'pass a query, get a concise web-grounded answer'. It provides no explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or suggests alternative sibling tools for specialized contexts, which would be helpful given the large sibling list.
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.
Each of the 30 tools has a highly specific, non-overlapping purpose, from brand visibility to chemical safety to YouTube transcripts. Descriptions are detailed and clearly differentiate each tool's function, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names use lowercase with hyphens, creating a consistent visual pattern. However, the structure varies: some are noun-verb (email-validate, pdf-extract), others noun-noun (brand-visibility, chem-compat). This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.
With 30 tools, the server offers a very broad surface. While each tool earns its place as a distinct utility, the high count may overwhelm agents and dilute focus. It is borderline heavy for a single server, hence a score of 3.
The tool set covers a wide range of domains: business, chemicals, crypto, domain, email, finance, holidays, trade, jobs, legal, mapping, medical, news, packages, electronics, PDF, product, recall, sanctions, screenshots, SEC, tech stack, web archive, web search, YouTube. Yet it lacks some common utilities like weather, translation, or image analysis, leaving notable gaps for a general-purpose utility server.