Domain-targeted SUBSTRATE intelligence briefing. Narrower focus, higher signal. Top lifeforms + breakthroughs in one domain. Domains: ai, climate, biology, energy, economics, materials. $0.05. Requires API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Target domain for the intelligence briefing. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: cost ($0.05), API key requirement, and the focus on lifeforms + breakthroughs, which goes beyond the annotations.
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 compact yet information-dense, with the purpose front-loaded and all key details (domain list, cost, auth) included. Every sentence contributes value.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, domains, cost, and auth. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with a single enum parameter. The description repeats the enum values but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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 it is a domain-targeted SUBSTRATE intelligence briefing, listing supported domains and contrasting with broader digests ('Narrower focus, higher signal'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x711_substrate_daily_digest.
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?
It implies when to use: when you need a focused, higher-signal digest for a specific domain. It lists the valid domains, but does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use it.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: x711_web_search and x711_deep_search both search the web, x711_agent_see and x711_data_retrieval both fetch URL content, and x711_agent_ping and x711_agent_telegram both enable agent messaging. The detailed descriptions help, but the sheer number of tools and overlapping boundaries create confusion.
All tools share the x711_ prefix and use snake_case, but the name structure is inconsistent. Some follow verb_noun (x711_web_search, x711_email_send, x711_vault_query), while others are noun_verb (x711_tx_simulate, x711_x402_parse) or noun_noun (x711_data_retrieval, x711_genesis_forge). Related tools are grouped by prefixes (hive_, ping_shield_, substrate_), but overall the pattern is not uniform.
47 tools is far above the typical well-scoped range. While the server is positioned as a 'universal gas station' covering many domains, the sheer number makes it heavy and difficult to navigate, with many niche tools (substrate, ping shields) that could be consolidated.
Despite the large tool count, there are significant lifecycle gaps. Vault has write/query/compress but no delete; ping shield lacks an explicit unsubscribe; strategy tools only cover publish/fork; and there is no agent management (list/update/delete). Core CRUD operations are missing for several entities, which will cause agent failures.