code_explainExplain a pasted code snippet: what it does, its flow, and risks. Read-only analysis; no execution. Price: 0.2 USDC per call (x402, Base). Resource: https://api.exo-trust.com/execute/code_explain. Returns the payment challenge unless already settled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| focus | No | ||
| language | No |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses read-only behavior, no execution, and the payment-challenge return behavior, which are important non-obvious behaviors.
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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary operational details such as price, resource, and payment behavior, though there is minor repetition in the payment-related wording.
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?
The description covers purpose, behavior, cost, resource, and payment challenge, which is adequate for a simple tool. However, it lacks parameter guidance and does not describe the actual explanatory output format beyond 'what it does, its flow, and risks.'
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%, and the description does not explain the parameters code, focus, or language. Only the code parameter is implied by 'pasted code snippet'; focus and language remain completely undefined.
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 explains a pasted code snippet, covering what it does, its flow, and risks. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools focused on rewriting, summarizing, translating, or other tasks.
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 understanding pasted code and explicitly notes it is read-only with no execution. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but edgar_financials and edgar_report overlap heavily, with the report apparently building on the same financial data. The three registry lookups (sanctions, VAT, LEI) are distinct, and the text-processing tools are separable.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use bare verbs (classify, extract, proofread, rewrite, summarize, translate), some use verb_noun (check_sanctions, lookup_lei, validate_vat, code_explain), and others use domain-based names (clinical_dd, edgar_financials, edgar_report, synergy_discovery). No single consistent convention is applied.
14 tools is within the reasonable range and each covers a distinct specialist area, but the set feels slightly broad and includes a few near-duplicates (edgar_financials vs edgar_report). It is not excessive, though tightening could improve focus.
The catalog covers a wide range of domains: sanctions, VAT, LEI, SEC filings, clinical trials, code analysis, text transformation, and discovery. It includes a discovery tool to enumerate specialists, which helps. Minor gaps like missing update/delete-style operations are not expected for a read-only specialist API, so coverage is strong.