FREE. Keyword-search every PulseNetwork endpoint (name, description, action, params). Returns matching endpoints with vertical, action, price, params, and base URL — the fastest way to find the right paid endpoint for a task. No wallet or payment needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | Max results (default 10, cap 25) | |
| query | Yes | Keywords to search for, e.g. "flight delay compensation" or "token honeypot scan" |
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 burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is FREE and requires no wallet/payment, and describes the return payload (vertical, action, price, params, base URL). It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE.', and every clause adds information: what it searches, what it returns, and the absence of payment requirement. No redundancy or fluff.
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 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and the key behavioral constraint (free/no payment). It could mention the max parameter explicitly, but the schema handles that. Overall, it is complete for a low-risk discovery 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'query' and 'max' documented including examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Keyword-search every PulseNetwork endpoint.' It distinguishes the tool from its paid endpoint siblings by positioning it as the discovery mechanism ('the fastest way to find the right paid endpoint for a task').
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 gives clear context: use this tool to find the right paid endpoint, and it is free with no wallet/payment needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'discover') or say when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.
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.