pricing_infoFree — list every paid tool in the 'web-intel' bundle with its price, payTo address and network. Call this first if you don't have a wallet ready yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that it is free and discloses the return content (price, payTo address, network), which is useful context beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentences with no redundancy: first states the function and output, second gives a clear usage directive. 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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the bundle, the specific fields returned, and the free nature. It doesn't explicitly define the return type, but 'list every' implies an array, which is sufficient for selection.
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 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly implies no input 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 it lists every paid tool in the 'web-intel' bundle with price, payTo address, and network. The verb 'list' and specific resource distinguish it from sibling tools like shopify monitors or tech-stack detectors.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first if you don't have a wallet ready yet.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it doesn't mention alternatives or 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but url-to-markdown and structured-extract both fetch a single URL and could be confused; tech-stack-detector and tech-stack-change-detector are closely related but descriptions clarify the difference. Overall, the tool set is well-differentiated.
The majority of tools use lowercase hyphenated names (e.g., domain-health-checker, url-to-markdown), but pricing_info breaks the pattern with an underscore. There is also some variation in style (detector vs. to-knowledge vs. extract), but it remains readable and predictable overall.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range for a web intelligence bundle, covering domain health, store data, content extraction, and tech stack detection without feeling bloated or sparse. Each tool earns its place for specific use cases.
The surface covers major web intelligence needs: domain audits, Shopify/Zid store data, content fetching/transformation, and tech stack detection. Minor gaps exist, such as no generic price-change monitor for non-Shopify stores and no whois/backlink tools, but these are not critical for the stated purpose.