Follows a shortened or tracking URL hop by hop without loading the page and returns the final destination and redirect chain. 0.001 USDC per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Short URL | |
| paymentProof | No | Payment proof: USDC tx hash on Polygon or Base (0x...) or Solana tx signature. Omit on the first call to receive the 402 payment instructions, pay, then call again with the proof. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
This description provides extremely rich behavioral context by specifying critical operational constraints (hop by hop without loading the page) and external requirements (0.001 USDC cost via x402). This is crucial since no annotations are present.
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 concise, front-loads the core functionality and the technical method, and fits all necessary information (functionality, mechanism, cost) into two focused sentences without unnecessary jargon.
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 high complexity involving redirect chains, costs, and required payment proofs, the description is highly complete. It covers the 'what,' 'how,' and 'how much' required for an agent to make an informed decision and call the tool.
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?
Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical operational semantics to the paymentProof parameter. It explains the exact format needed (USDC tx hash) and the workflow (omit on first call to receive 402 instructions), which is essential for correct invocation.
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 defines the purpose as following shortened or tracking URLs hop by hop. This specifically distinguishes it from sibling tools like url_parse or web_extract, which deal with structure or content rather than redirection chains.
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?
While it does not explicitly name an alternative tool, the description clearly sets the scope—resolving the final destination of a short link—which provides sufficient guidance on when this tool should be used versus a general link extractor.
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.