Fetch a public web page and return its title + clean markdown; distill=true adds key-fact bullets. Useful when you have no web access of your own. Paid (~$0.0012 in KAS).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| distill | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool fetches public pages, returns title and markdown, and allows distillation. However, it omits details on error handling, rate limits, or what happens with non-public pages, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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 concise, containing only two sentences that cover purpose, optional behavior, and usage context. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.
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?
Despite the lack of an output schema, the description explains the return values (title, clean markdown, and optionally key-fact bullets). For a tool with only two parameters, it provides sufficient context about inputs and outputs, though it could mention potential limitations like size or access issues.
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 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It does add meaning for the 'distill' parameter ('adds key-fact bullets') but does not elaborate on 'url' beyond its presence in the schema. This provides some semantic value but not full compensation.
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 action (fetch), resource (public web page), and outputs (title + clean markdown). It also explains the optional distill mode. This differentiates it from the listed sibling tools, none of which perform the same function.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when you have no web access of your own'. It also mentions the cost, providing context for decision-making. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention any alternatives.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Even within related domains (e.g., covenant operations, proving steps), the functions are well-separated and described.
Most tools follow a verb_noun or noun_noun pattern with underscores, but there are some single-verb names like 'catalog' and 'classify'. Within subdomains naming is consistent (e.g., kaspa_*, covenant_*, prove_*). Minor deviations prevent a perfect score.
36 tools is on the high side for a typical MCP server, but the broad scope (blockchain, payments, ZK proving, text processing, search, registry) justifies the count. It borders on being too large for easy navigation but remains reasonable.
The server covers a wide range of functionalities with no critical gaps for its stated domain. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct Kaspa send transaction tool), but the covenant tools provide a workaround. Overall, the surface is fairly complete.