Get ASN metadata (org, country, CIDR ranges). Use for network-research and threat-intel agents.
Example call: {"asn": "AS15169"}
Cost: $0.005–$0.05 USDC on Base per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asn | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses cost range ($0.005–$0.05 USDC per call) but lacks other behavioral traits such as read-only hint, rate limits, or response size. Since no annotations are provided, the description partially compensates.
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?
Very concise: two sentences plus example and cost. Front-loaded with purpose, no fluff, every sentence provides 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?
Given simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage context, example, and cost. Could mention output format explicitly, but the fields are already listed. Adequate for agent understanding.
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?
The 'asn' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage). The description only implies the input via example 'AS15169' but does not explicitly state the required format (e.g., with or without 'AS' prefix). Limited added meaning beyond 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?
Clearly states 'Get ASN metadata' with specific fields (org, country, CIDR ranges), distinguishing it from sibling lookup tools like lookup_ip or lookup_whois.
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?
Explicitly recommends use for 'network-research and threat-intel agents', giving clear context. However, it does not directly contrast with sibling tools or specify 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.
The set is riddled with near-duplicates: lookup_reddit/scrape_reddit, lookup_wikipedia/scrape_wikipedia, lookup_dockerhub/scrape_dockerhub, lookup_steam/scrape_steam, enrich_googlereviews/enrich_reviews, lookup_ip/lookup_ipinfo, and multiple crypto-pricing tools (lookup_crypto, lookup_coingecko, bundle_crypto_360, scrape_binance, scrape_coinbase). Descriptions try to differentiate with phrases like 'heavier than' or 'same domain but with full thread parsing,' but the boundaries are fuzzy and an agent can easily pick the wrong one.
Naming follows a fairly consistent prefix-based snake_case pattern (lookup_, scrape_, enrich_, bundle_, search_, ai_, data_) where the prefix denotes action weight and the noun identifies the target. Minor deviations exist: posts_x, ai_ask/pro/ultra (model-tier names instead of resources), sslstatus (missing underscore), and lookup_useragents_top are slightly off-pattern.
172 tools is an extreme count, far beyond even the 50+ floor for a score of 1. This floods the agent's context and tool-selection space, making every call require a search through a massive list. While aggregation servers can justify more tools, this volume is unmanageable and every tool must be evaluated by the agent.
The surface is extraordinarily broad but unevenly deep: many sources have both a light lookup and a heavy scrape variant, while other areas have just a single shallow endpoint. There is no coherent domain with complete lifecycle coverage, and despite the huge catalog, common capabilities are still absent. The breadth prevents obvious gaps, but depth and coherence suffer.