Paid via standard x402 v1 (USDC on Base): audit ONE public site across eight AI-agent readiness surfaces (robots.txt, sitemap.xml, llms.txt, llms-full.txt, agents.txt, x402, agents.json, security.txt) and get a grade A-D. Price 2.00 USDC on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | absolute https URL of the site to audit |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it clearly discloses the key behavioral trait: the call is paid via standard x402 v1, costs 2.00 USDC on Base, and audits exactly one site. It does not detail payment failure behavior or idempotency, but the cost and payment mechanism are unusually transparent.
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 and front-loads the payment requirement before the core action. The surface list is useful, though the pricing/network detail is stated twice, causing minor 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?
Without an output schema, the description at least states the outcome—a grade A-D—and lists the surfaces audited, which covers basic invocation. However, it omits the x402 payment flow steps, failure behavior, and what additional report data accompanies the grade, leaving some operational uncertainty.
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% and the URL parameter already says 'absolute https URL'. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the URL must be a public site and that exactly one site is audited per call, which goes beyond the bare 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 states a specific action—audit ONE public site—and enumerates the eight AI-agent readiness surfaces plus the A-D grade output. This makes the tool's scope unmistakable and differentiates it from generic site tools even without naming siblings.
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?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_site_audit_5, generate_llms_txt, or wallet_watch_pro. The description only implies the use case and does not state exclusions or prerequisites beyond a public URL.
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.
There is clear overlap between agent_site_audit/agent_site_audit_5 and wallet_watch_pro/wallet_watch_snapshot, which differ only by scale. Descriptions clarify the distinction, but the agent must carefully parse limits to choose the right one. Other tools are distinct.
Tool names mix conventions: some start with a verb (generate_llms_txt, web_fetch), others are noun-first compounds (crypto_price, storefront_catalog, wallet_watch_*). Variant suffixes like _5, _pro, _snapshot are not uniform. Overall readable but not consistent.
With 8 tools, the count sits comfortably within a well-scoped range. Each tool has a specific purpose, though some duplicates (audit variants, wallet variants) could be consolidated. Still, the number is appropriate for a mixed utility toolkit.
The server covers its stated domains—site auditing, crypto prices, LLM file generation, storefront catalog, wallet snapshots, and web fetching. There are minor gaps (e.g., no batch crypto pricing, no transaction history beyond recent), but for a pay-per-call toolkit the surface is reasonably complete.