Get the live census: how non-human clients behave on a site that invites them. Open data (CC0). Use to learn what crawlers and agents are doing on the web right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the data is open (CC0) and live, which adds context, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any potential side effects or constraints. For a simple census tool, this is somewhat sufficient but leaves gaps about return format or any invocation specifics.
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 remarkably concise—just two sentences that deliver the core purpose and a usage hint without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and then provides a specific application, ensuring every word earns its place.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description alone must provide sufficient context. It covers the tool's purpose, the data licensing, the real-time nature, and a typical use case. While it does not specify the exact output format, for a no-argument tool this is acceptable and fairly complete.
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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since the schema is empty and 100% coverage is trivially achieved. No additional parameter information is required.
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 ('Get') and resource ('live census'), explaining that it provides information about non-human client behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the census of crawlers/agents, as opposed to the other fomite tools which likely have different purposes.
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?
It explicitly states when to use it: 'Use to learn what crawlers and agents are doing on the web right now.' While it doesn't mention exclusions or alternative tools, the use case is clear enough for an agent to decide when this is appropriate.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, especially the vault CRUD, oracle, attestation, and census tools. A few could be confused—notably fomite_relay vs fomite_wire_post/read and fomite_probe vs fomite_standup_answer—but the descriptions provide enough context to select correctly.
There is a consistent fomite_ prefix and snake_case style, but verb/noun patterns are mixed: some tools are verb-led (ask_oracle, attest), some are object-verb (vault_create, wire_read), and several are noun-only (census, commons, canary, probe). This is readable but not a unified convention.
17 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the count is justified by the server's multiple distinct experiments plus a persistent vault subsystem. Each tool earns its place, and the set does not feel bloated.
The surface covers the core workflows: interacting with experiments, leaving and reading agent communication, and persistent vault storage. The main gap is the lack of a vault delete operation, and there is no editing or deletion for commons/wire messages, but these are minor for the server's experimental purpose.