get_public_urlHTTP GET of an allowlisted public docs URL (HowTo, use cases, discovery JSON, llms-agent). Never calls register/deposit/buy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Absolute https://imbawallet.com URL from the allowlist (HowTo, use cases, tiers, well-known, openapi discovery, llms-agent). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds the HTTP method, the allowlist restriction, and an explicit side-effect guarantee ('Never calls register/deposit/buy'). This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations, though error and rate-limit behavior is not covered.
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?
Two short sentences front-load the core behavior and then add a valuable negative guarantee. There is no filler or redundancy with the schema.
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 simple one-parameter, read-only fetch with rich schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete. Minor gaps are the absence of an explicit pointer to list_docs_urls for obtaining allowlisted URLs and no mention of the returned payload shape, but neither blocks correct invocation.
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 schema already documents the single url parameter at 100% coverage, and the description's mention of doc categories largely mirrors the schema. No additional parameter semantics are added, so 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 uses a specific verb/resource pair ('HTTP GET of an allowlisted public docs URL') and enumerates the allowed doc categories, making the tool's scope unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling getters, which target specific fact sets, and from transaction tools via 'Never calls register/deposit/buy.'
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 the tool is for fetching any allowlisted public docs URL, and the schema reinforces the allowable URL set. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_agent_facts or list_docs_urls, nor does it mention using list_docs_urls to discover valid URLs.
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 target a distinct docs concern: facts, use cases, tier policy, catalog placement, URL fetching, and URL listing. get_agent_facts and get_tier_policy are somewhat policy-adjacent, but their descriptions clarify the boundary.
All tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with get_* dominating and list_docs_urls as a natural variant. The naming clearly signals a read-only documentation/knowledge server.
Six tools is well-scoped for a documentation and policy retrieval server. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feels redundant or extraneous.
The surface covers the core knowledge needs: policy facts, use-case playbooks, tier rules, doc URL discovery, public URL retrieval, and MCP routing guidance. As a read-only docs server, it does not need CRUD operations, and the lack of them mirrors its stated constraints.