agent_site_audit_5
Pay-per-call: audit 5 public sites at once for AI-agent readiness. Price 7.00 USDC on Base.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | 5 absolute https URLs |
Autonomy x402 Tools
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions pay-per-call and public sites, which gives some behavioral context, but does not disclose whether the audit is read-only, if any side effects occur, or what the response contains. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the core functionality, batch size, and pricing without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to read.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks crucial context such as what the audit returns, what 'readiness' means, any error scenarios, or authentication requirements. Without an output schema or additional details, users cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description adds minimal meaning to the 'urls' parameter beyond the schema's '5 absolute https URLs', only reinforcing that they are public sites. It does not clarify expected format, length, or other constraints beyond what the schema already specifies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: auditing exactly 5 public sites for AI-agent readiness, with a specific price and payment model. It distinguishes itself from likely sibling tools by the batch size.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for auditing 5 sites at once and mentions pay-per-call, but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over alternatives like the related agent_site_audit. No conditions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
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.
Naming Consistency3/5
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.
Tool Count4/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.