Grade a web page A-F on HTTP security headers (HSTS, CSP, framing, nosniff, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy, cookie flags, version leakage, http->https redirect) with the value and a concrete fix per check. Price: $0.003 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Page URL (https://...) or plain hostname |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses the $0.003 USDC x402 payment requirement and the per-check value/fix output. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or side-effect-free, whether it makes live network requests, what rate limits apply, or how errors surface.
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 purpose and the concrete checks are front-loaded in a single dense sentence, followed by the pricing detail. Every element earns its place, and there is no boilerplate or repetition.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the grading scale, the checks performed, and that each check returns a value and concrete fix. It could go further on response format and error behavior, but the core is complete enough for an agent to call it 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?
There is a single required 'url' parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents acceptable formats such as https:// or plain hostname. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the overall scope, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the documentation work.
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 states a specific verb, 'Grade', a clear resource, 'web page', and enumerates the exact HTTP security header checks, from HSTS to http->https redirect. This makes its purpose clear and implicitly distinct from domainaudit_tls and domainaudit_email, but it never explicitly names a sibling or states how it differs from domainaudit_audit.
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 says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among sibling domain audit tools. Apart from the price, the agent must infer the selection context entirely.
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.