Read web content through a paid content gateway. Returns clean, structured text extracted from the URL. Use this for content services (service_type = 'content').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The full URL to read (must match a verified domain on the service) | |
| service_slug | Yes | The content service slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool is 'paid', hinting at cost implications, but does not specify how charges work, whether authentication is needed, or rate limits. The description also lacks details on what happens if the URL is not verified or if the request fails. Overall, adequate but incomplete.
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 extremely concise at two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and usage condition, with no redundant or extraneous 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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It could be improved by specifying the return format (e.g., plain text, markdown) and error handling, but is largely complete for an agent's decision-making.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds context ('Returns clean, structured text') but does not provide additional semantics for the parameters beyond what is in the schema. The phrase 'service_type = 'content'' indirectly relates to service_slug, but this is already clear from 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 clearly states the action ('Read web content'), the resource ('through a paid content gateway'), and the result ('clean, structured text'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it is for 'content services (service_type = 'content')', which differentiates it from search, balance, and other API tools.
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 provides a direct usage condition: 'Use this for content services (service_type = 'content')'. This helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other service types, which would improve clarity.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: balance checking, service discovery (list/search/get), paid calls (internal/external), content reading, and credit top-up. Overlaps like list_services vs. search are clearly differentiated by how they are used (browse vs. filter).
All tools follow a consistent `apihub_verb_noun` pattern in snake_case. Verbs like get, list, search, call, topup are paired with appropriate nouns, and modifiers like 'external' are used uniformly.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose as an API marketplace. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow—discovery, payment, invocation—without unnecessary duplication or missing essentials.
The tool set provides a complete lifecycle: service discovery (list, search, get), credit management (balance, topup), and API invocation (call, call_external, read_content). No obvious gaps for the intended use case.