Inspection, steganography and forensics API for files and images. Bitcoin pay-per-use.
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool targets a distinct action: account creation, credit checking, ordering, file inspection, steganography extraction, and recon. No two tools have overlapping purposes, so an agent should not be confused.
All names share the lynx_ prefix and use lowercase snake_case, but the second part mixes verb_noun (inspect_file), noun_verb (steg_extract), single-word nouns (recon, order, signup), and a pronoun (me). This is readable but not a predictable convention.
Six tools fit the apparent scope of a small security/OSINT API with account management. Each tool serves a distinct function and none feel like filler.
Core account flow (create key, check credits, buy credits) and the main capabilities (file analysis, steg extraction, recon) are present. Minor omissions like key revocation or order history are not fatal and can be worked around.
Inspect a file (hashes, entropy, strings, metadata, PE/PDF/Office analysis). Pass file bytes as base64.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| content_base64 | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does but omits side effects, permissions, rate limits, return format, or safety profile. It does not state whether it is read-only, how output is structured, or any constraints such as file size limits. This leaves significant uncertainty for the agent.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a parameter hint. It is not bloated, but its brevity sacrifices essential details. Structurally it is acceptable, though it could be better organized with separate lines for purpose and parameter guidance.
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?
The tool performs complex file analysis but has no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent can expect in return (e.g., a report, specific fields, error handling). It also does not mention any prerequisites, limits, or authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and results.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It only clarifies that file bytes are passed as base64 (content_base64), but says nothing about api_key or filename. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct all parameters, especially since the schema provides no descriptions.
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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a file'), and enumerates the exact analysis types (hashes, entropy, strings, metadata, PE/PDF/Office), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't contrast with siblings, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from other lynx tools.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions or conditions. The only instruction is to pass file bytes as base64, which is a parameter hint, not a usage guideline. The agent receives no context for selecting this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check credits + usage for a key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects (though 'check' implies read-only), authentication requirements beyond the API key, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It also does not state whether it accesses external systems or if it's local. The description is minimal and lacks depth.
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 extremely short, almost terse: 'Check credits + usage for a key.' It is front-loaded with the action and subject, and there is no fluff. However, it is so brief that it might be under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
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?
This is a simple tool with only one parameter and no output schema, so the description could easily be complete with a few more details. However, it lacks mention of the response format (credits and usage numerical values?), any prerequisites (such as having a valid key), or the significance of 'credits + usage' (e.g., for billing purposes). It is insufficient for an agent to know exactly what to expect.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it simply says 'for a key' without explaining what format the api_key should be in, how it is used, or whether it is an API key for the service or a key for a specific resource. It adds minimal value over the schema, which just lists 'api_key' as a string.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Check credits + usage for a key.' This is specific enough to understand the basic purpose, but it does not distinguish from siblings beyond implying it's about account/credit status rather than file operations or ordering. It provides no details on what 'usage' means or what 'key' refers to specifically.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not mention that it is for checking balance/usage before performing other operations, nor does it explain the relationship to 'lynx_order' or 'lynx_signup'. There is no exclusion of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a BTCPay invoice for credits. usd in {2,5,10,20}. Returns a checkout_link to pay in bitcoin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| usd | Yes | ||
| api_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates an invoice and returns a Bitcoin payment link, but it does not mention authorization requirements, side effects on the credit balance, or failure behavior. Partial coverage, but not misleading.
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 operation and resource, then immediately give the constraint and return value. Every word is relevant and there is no filler.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential input constraint and the key returned field. It lacks notes on errors, permissions, or post-payment credit application, but the core invocation path is sufficiently specified.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful constraint information by restricting 'usd' to the set {2,5,10,20}. However, it does not explain 'api_key' beyond its name, leaving that parameter's semantics mostly to inference.
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 names a specific action and resource: 'Create a BTCPay invoice for credits.' It also states the concrete output ('checkout_link'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools that deal with inspection, recon, signup, and extraction.
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 phrase 'for credits' implies the intended use case, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus an alternative or what prerequisites are needed. It relies on inference rather than clear contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run recon against an external target. tool in {nmap,subfinder,nuclei,theharvester,dnsrecon}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| api_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action and lists tool options, but does not mention output format, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or any operational constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs network scanning.
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 and front-loaded with the purpose, but it is under-specified. While it is not verbose, it sacrifices essential information for brevity. The two sentences are easy to parse, but they omit critical context that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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 three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'recon' entails, what the return value looks like, how the api_key is used, or any error handling. An agent would struggle to know what to expect or how to provide valid inputs.
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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only elaborates on the 'tool' parameter by listing valid values (nmap, subfinder, etc.). The 'target' and 'api_key' parameters are left unexplained, and the description does not clarify their formats or purposes. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool.
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 tool's purpose: 'Run recon against an external target' and enumerates the supported sub-tools in the tool parameter. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which are recon-related, so an agent can easily identify when this tool is relevant.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit. The description implies that this tool is for recon, but it does not state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Since the sibling tools are unrelated, the context is somewhat clear, but there is no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a no-KYC API key with an email. Returns sk-lynx-... key (0 credits).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose key facts: the created key is 'no-KYC', has the 'sk-lynx-...' prefix, and starts with 0 credits. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether a new account is created), uniqueness constraints, or failure/error behavior beyond the happy path.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, the key property, the return format, and the credit status with no filler or repetition. Every element 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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what is created, with what input, and what the caller gets back (including key format and credit state). It is not exhaustive about edge cases, but the low complexity makes this sufficient.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented email parameter. It adds only that the email is used to create the key, which largely restates the property name. It does not clarify acceptable email formats, whether verification is required, or what happens if the email is already registered.
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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a precise resource ('no-KYC API key'), and the required input ('with an email'), and it explains the return value. This distinguishes lynx_signup from the sibling tools, all of which perform different operations (recon, extraction, ordering, etc.).
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 tool's intended use is implied by 'Create a no-KYC API key'—use it when you need to sign up for a key—but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools or note that this is only for initial key creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Extract hidden data (steghide + zsteg LSB). Optional passphrase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| passphrase | Yes | ||
| content_base64 | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read operation but does not state whether it modifies the input, requires special permissions, or what the return format or error cases are. Mentioning the underlying tools adds some value but not enough.
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 main action and methods. It is efficient and not verbose, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
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 4 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information about input format, output, prerequisites, and error handling, making it inadequate for 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'optional passphrase,' leaving api_key, filename, and content_base64 completely unexplained. The schema itself has no descriptions, so agents cannot infer their meaning.
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?
States a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('hidden data'), and names the methods (steghide + zsteg LSB), making it clear what the tool does and distinguishing it from unrelated siblings like lynx_recon or lynx_order.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention conditions like needing a file with steganographic content or when to prefer it over other tools. The only hint, 'optional passphrase,' is parameter-specific, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
lynx_inspect_filelynx_melynx_orderlynx_reconlynx_signuplynx_steg_extractBitcoin intelligence API. Pay per call via L402 Lightning (10-200 sats). No accounts needed.
Privacy-preserving file proofs on Solana. Files are hashed locally. Currently free, no API key.
Breach intelligence API: email search, domain monitoring, passwords and stealer logs.
Enrich IPs, emails, domains, companies. Scrape SEC, news, jobs, Crunchbase. Bitcoin pay-per-use.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
