ScrapeMole

ScrapeMole NEAR Intents quote (free)

near_intents_quote

Free. Get a NEAR Intents payment quote for one specific paid tool call, payable in any token NEAR Intents 1Click routes (e.g. nep141:wrap.near). Returns depositAddress and amountIn. Fund the deposit, then call the paid tool with the same arguments and params._meta["near-intents/deposit"] = depositAddress. One deposit pays for one successful call; failed calls do not consume it; a replay returns INTENTS_DEPOSIT_USED.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tool": "<tool>",
      "arguments": "<arguments>",
      "originAsset": "<originAsset>",
      "refundTo": "<refundTo>"
    },
    "name": "near_intents_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	Yes	Name of the paid tool to pay for, e.g. youtube_search.
`refundTo`	Yes	Your NEAR Intents account (or origin-chain address with refundType ORIGIN_CHAIN) for refunds if the swap fails.
`arguments`	Yes	Exact arguments you will pass to that tool, e.g. {"q":"lofi"}.
`refundType`	No		INTENTS
`depositType`	No		INTENTS
`originAsset`	Yes	1Click assetId you pay with, e.g. nep141:wrap.near. List: GET /v1/intents.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the call is free, failed calls do not consume the deposit, and a replay is rejected with INTENTS_DEPOSIT_USED — consistent with idempotentHint=false. That failure/replay semantics is exactly the behavior an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads eligibility ("Free.") and purpose, then the return values, then the follow-up workflow in a compact, ordered sequence. Every clause carries actionable information — cost, outputs, deposit binding, consumption rule, error code — with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Rich enough for a 6-param, nested-object tool with no output schema: it describes the returned fields, the funding workflow, and consumption/error behavior. Gaps remain around refundTo/refundType vs depositType semantics and whether a quote expires or amountIn drifts before funding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 67% schema coverage, the description contributes real meaning: the "same arguments" requirement ties the arguments object to the deposit binding, and the originAsset prose ("any token NEAR Intents 1Click routes, e.g. nep141:wrap.near") clarifies the assetId format beyond the schema. It says nothing about refundType or depositType, leaving those two enum params entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a NEAR Intents payment quote") plus the exact scope ("one specific paid tool call") and even the accepted payment assets. It also names the concrete return fields (depositAddress, amountIn), so an agent knows exactly what it is getting and cannot confuse it with the sibling YouTube/Trends content tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit procedural sequence: get quote, fund depositAddress, then re-invoke the paid tool with identical arguments plus params._meta["near-intents/deposit"]. It also scopes the economics ("one deposit pays for one successful call"). It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or an alternative payment path, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ScrapeMole tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?