search_by_fuzzy_hashSearch scans by fuzzy hash (paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| hash_type | Yes | ||
| hash_value | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that results are paginated, adding a behavioral trait not covered by the annotations (which already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). However, it does not explain how pagination works (e.g., page/limit parameters are in the schema, but no mention of result ordering or limits). Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description's minimal addition merits a moderate score.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the essential purpose and includes a useful behavioral note ('paginated'). It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It states the core functionality and pagination, and the output schema likely describes return values. However, it lacks details on valid hash types, possible edge cases, and how this tool differs from nearby siblings, leaving gaps in completeness.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It implies that hash_value is the fuzzy hash and hash_type specifies the hash algorithm, but it does not explain valid values for hash_type or the meaning of page/limit beyond their names. This is insufficient for a low-coverage schema.
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 action ('Search scans') and the filter ('fuzzy hash'), with a parenthetical indicating pagination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'scans' as the resource, unlike similar tools like search_jsfingerprints_by_fuzzy_hash. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with these siblings, so it misses the top score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or refer to other search tools that might be more appropriate for different hash types or resources. The only hint is 'scans by fuzzy hash', which is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.
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.
Many tools overlap in purpose, particularly the JS fingerprint search functions (e.g., search_js_fingerprint_by_md5 and search_jsfingerprints_by_md5) which are nearly identical. The large number of get_* and search_* tools for various statistics also creates boundary ambiguity.
The verb_noun pattern is mostly followed, but there are significant inconsistencies: 'jsfingerprints' vs 'js_fingerprints' vs 'js_fingerprint', and the occasional use of 'find' instead of 'search' (e.g., find_js_fingerprint_similar_by_hash). This mixed style makes it hard to predict tool names.
With 128 tools, the server is severely over-scoped. Many tools could be combined (e.g., all search_jsfingerprints_by_* variants) or parameterized. The sheer number overwhelms an agent and suggests poor API design.
The core URL scanning workflow (submit, retrieve results, search, analyze) is well covered, including detailed sub-analyses like malware, YARA, and JS fingerprints. Minor gaps include no scan cancellation or user-specific scan listing, but overall coverage is strong.