Luhn-validate a credit-card number and detect the network. Pass ?number=... as query. Use for fintech UX agents (NOT a fraud check).
Example call: {"query_string": "number=4111111111111111"}
Cost: $0.005–$0.05 USDC on Base per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query_string | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds the cost per call ($0.005-$0.05 USDC on Base) and clarifies it is not a fraud check, providing useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe side effects, authentication needs, or response format.
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?
Three sentences covering purpose, usage, and cost. Front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds 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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter format, usage boundary, and cost. However, it lacks details about the return value (e.g., isValid, network name), which an agent needs to interpret the result. This gap reduces completeness.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining the query string format: 'Pass ?number=... as query' and providing an example 'number=4111111111111111'. This adds significant meaning 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 clearly states the tool validates a credit-card number via Luhn algorithm and detects the network. It specifies the verb (validate/detect) and resource (credit card number). While it distinguishes from potential fraud-check tools, it does not explicitly differentiate from other lookup_* tools, but the uniqueness is implied.
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 says 'Use for fintech UX agents (NOT a fraud check).' This tells when and when not to use it, with clear context. No alternatives mentioned but the exclusion is valuable.
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.