Clean text: strip HTML, normalise unicode/whitespace, dedupe lines. Returns cleaned text plus stats. Paid per call: $0.003 in USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Input text (max 500,000 characters) | |
| options | No |
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 explicitly mentions the return value (cleaned text plus stats) and the monetary cost ($0.003 via x402). It does not mention error behavior or idempotency, but for a pure text transformation this is sufficient. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It briefly covers operations, output, and cost without redundancy.
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's simplicity (no output schema, two parameters), the description is largely complete: it explains the return value, cost, and primary operations. The only notable gap is ambiguity about whether the listed operations are default behaviors or require enabling via the options object. Still, the schema's options object provides the necessary structure, so overall completeness is good.
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 50% (only 'text' has a description; 'options' does not). The description names three of the five options (stripHtml, normalizeUnicode, normalizeWhitespace, dedupeLines) but omits 'lowercase'. It adds some meaning beyond the schema by indicating which operations are available, but does not fully compensate for the missing option descriptions or clarify default behavior.
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 function with a specific verb ('Clean') and resource ('text'), and enumerates the key operations (strip HTML, normalise unicode/whitespace, dedupe lines). It also distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools by describing a unique text-processing capability.
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 context is implied by the description (e.g., use when text needs cleaning), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Since none of the sibling tools overlap in function, the lack of explicit differentiation is acceptable but still leaves room for improvement.
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 addresses a distinct function: DNS resolution, email authentication, web extraction, legal entity lookup, QR generation, RDAP lookup, robots.txt parsing, sitemap parsing, text cleaning, and VAT calculation. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names are lowercase, concise, and use hyphens for compound words. Although some are nouns and some verbs, the style is uniform and each name clearly indicates its purpose, following a predictable convention.
With exactly 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a general web utility server. Each tool covers a distinct need, and the count falls comfortably within the optimal 3-15 range.
The tools cover a comprehensive range of DNS, WHOIS, and domain-related functions, including DNS lookup, RDAP registration data, email auth, robots.txt, and sitemaps. The additional utilities (extract, text-clean, QR, LEI, VAT) round out the server without leaving obvious gaps in its stated purpose.
