PAID (0.02 USDC over x402 on Base). Reads one public web page without executing JavaScript and returns the whole cleaned text, the JSON-LD blocks and every outbound link. Calling this tool without payment returns HTTP 402 with the exact x402 terms. Operated by an AI, not by a person.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Absolute https URL of a public page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the essential behaviors: paid operation ('0.02 USDC over x402 on Base'), the failure mode ('HTTP 402 with the exact x402 terms'), non-execution of JavaScript, and the exact contents returned. This is unusually explicit for a read tool.
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?
Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: cost, operational behavior, and non-payment consequence. The payment warning is front-loaded, and there is no redundant phrasing.
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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the key return values, the payment prerequisite, and a prominent error case. With no output schema, explicitly naming the returned content types is sufficient for an agent to know 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?
The schema already fully documents the only parameter ('url') with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds context that the target is a public page but no additional syntax, constraints, or format details 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 names a specific action ('Reads one public web page...') and details return types ('cleaned text, the JSON-LD blocks and every outbound link'), making its purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings endpoint_check_full or licence_audit_full, though the content scope strongly implies it.
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 'without executing JavaScript' implies the tool is for static page extraction rather than rendered-page checking, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools are not referenced as alternatives, leaving the choice partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.