List the credit top-up amounts (in USD) and the monthly no-ads price. No key needed. Credits are prepaid; $2/site/month (deducted from the balance) removes the boomurl banner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes that no key is needed and explains the credit deduction mechanism for removing ads, but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or error conditions. Since no annotations exist, the description partially covers 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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only necessary extra context (no key needed, credit usage). Every sentence adds value.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it lists what is returned (amounts and monthly price) and explains how credits work. It could optionally describe the output format, but overall it covers the essential context.
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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is no need for parameter explanation.
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 lists credit top-up amounts in USD and the monthly no-ads price, using a specific verb (list) and resource (top-up packs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buy_credits or get_balance.
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the tool's nature (listing packs), but there is no mention of contexts or exclusions.
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.
All 14 tools have clearly distinct purposes with no overlap. Related tools like buy_credits, get_balance, and list_topup_packs handle different aspects of credit management without ambiguity.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., attach_domain, delete_site, list_sites). No mixing of conventions.
14 tools cover the core functionality of a static site hosting service: domain management, site publishing/deletion, credit system, key acquisition, and name checking. The scope is well-balanced.
The tool set covers the main lifecycle (create, read, update, delete) for sites and domains. Minor gaps include no direct tool to rename a site or manage keys beyond creation.
