Compare JSON or YAML deterministically and return source hashes plus machine-readable additions, removals, and replacements by path with explicit truncation evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | Yes | ||
| before | Yes | ||
| format | No | json |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Structured Structured diff result | |
| meta | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | Unique request identifier |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses important behavior: deterministic output, inclusion of source hashes, and explicit truncation evidence. This adds meaningful context about what the tool returns and how it handles large inputs, which annotations alone do not cover.
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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then packs critical behavioral details (deterministic, hashes, machine-readable diff, truncation evidence) without any superfluous words.
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 moderate-complexity diff tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context and return characteristics. The mention of truncation evidence addresses an edge case likely relevant for large structured documents, making it complete enough for effective tool selection.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain the before/after parameters beyond implying comparison, nor does it clarify the format enum or input constraints. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little value for parameter usage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Compare'), identifies the exact resource ('JSON or YAML'), and clarifies the deterministic nature and output (hashes + additions/removals/replacements by path). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like document.diff by focusing on structured data.
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 clearly implies the tool is for deterministic comparison of JSON or YAML structured data, which sets context for use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when another tool (e.g., document.diff) would be preferred, so it stops short of a perfect score.
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.
Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (crypto, data, developer, document, research, web) and each tool name describes a specific function; however, a few umbrella tools like web.full-audit and data.contract overlap with their more targeted counterparts, creating minor ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix, a dot, and a hyphenated lowercase compound name (e.g., crypto.base-block-inspect, web.seo-audit). This makes naming predictable and easy to scan.
At 63 tools, the surface area is very large and exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. While the tools are organized into six domains, the sheer number makes it difficult for an agent to select efficiently, and some tools are bundled combinations of others.
Each domain offers a thorough set of operations: crypto covers address, account, block, contract, events, gas, and transaction inspection; data covers cleaning, conversion, schema, and validation; developer covers code review, dependency/license audits, and test generation; research covers SEC, OFAC, GLEIF, and USAspending; web covers extraction, SEO, security, and performance. No obvious dead ends exist for the read-only/inspection purpose.