Paid via standard x402 v1 (USDC on Base): generate a ready-to-ship llms.txt for ANY public site from its sitemap (40 pages max). Price 3.00 USDC on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | absolute https URL of the site to generate llms.txt for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose key behaviors: the tool is paid ('Paid via standard x402 v1', Price 3.00 USDC on Base）， the input is a public site, and the output is a ready-to-ship llms.txt. However, it does not disclose failure modes (e.g., what happens when the site has no sitemap or exceeds 40 pages), nor how the result is delivered. The pricing/payment disclosure is valuable and goes beyond the schema.
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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the payment mechanics, states the core action, and includes the key limitation. Every clause carries useful information, making it appropriately compact yet informative.
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 paid tool, the description provides most essential operational context: pricing, currency, payment standard, input source, and output intent. It does not describe return format or error handling, but given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present. Minor gaps around failure scenarios prevent a perfect score.
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% for the only parameter, url. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the URL must point to a public site with a sitemap, and that the sitemap is capped at 40 pages. This aids correct invocation by implying the URL should be a site root, not a sitemap URL, and that larger sites are unsupported.
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 verb ('generate'), a concrete resource ('a ready-to-ship llms.txt'), an input method ('from its sitemap'), and a clear scope ('ANY public site'). It also includes a critical capability limit ('40 pages max'). This sharply differentiates the tool from its sibling tools like agent_site_audit or wallet_watch_pro, which serve entirely different purposes.
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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a ready-to-ship llms.txt is needed for a public site. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name any alternative for sites with more than 40 pages or missing sitemaps. The '40 pages max' is a constraint but not framed as an exclusion or routing cue.
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.