github_repo_seo_auditPaid (x402, $0.005 USDC on Base). Score a GitHub repo's README, description, topics, homepage and metadata and return a 0-100 score, a grade, and concrete fixes. Input: owner, repo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | GitHub repository name | |
| owner | Yes | GitHub repository owner or org | |
| x402_payment | No | Base64 X-PAYMENT header from your x402 wallet (omit to get the payment challenge) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds a critical behavioral fact: the tool is paid (x402, $0.005 USDC) and discloses the return value structure. This is consistent with annotations and enriches the agent's understanding 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 short sentences pack the essential payment warning, functional scope, and input format. There is no filler or redundant information.
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 no output schema exists, the description's mention of the 0-100 score, grade, and fixes gives the agent expectation of return. It also flags cost and inputs. Minor omissions like response format or specific fix details are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including the x402_payment challenge flow. The description merely restates 'owner, repo' as inputs, adding nothing beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'score' with a defined resource ('GitHub repo's README, description, topics, homepage and metadata') and states the outputs (0-100 score, grade, concrete fixes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_web_reader and crypto_market_signal.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the standalone title and purpose make its use case obvious. Since siblings are unrelated (web reader, crypto signals), there's no confusion; the paid requirement and input format offer context.
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.
Each tool targets a completely different domain: web fetching, crypto market data, and GitHub SEO auditing. There is zero overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow the same pattern: lowercase with underscores and descriptive noun phrases (e.g., agent_web_reader, crypto_market_signal). They are consistent in style, though they lack the conventional verb_noun structure typical of MCP tools.
With only three tools, the count is small, but the server name 'agent-web-reader' implies a web-reading focus. Only one tool serves that purpose; the other two are unrelated, making the actual web-reading surface very thin and inappropriate for the stated scope.
For a web-reader server, there is only a generic URL fetcher. Missing are features like batch crawling, content type-specific extraction, or link/meta analysis tools. The inclusion of crypto and GitHub tools does not fill these gaps, leaving the web-reading capability incomplete.