Read web content through a paid content gateway. Returns clean, structured text extracted from the URL. Use this for content services (service_type = 'content').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The full URL to read (must match a verified domain on the service) | |
| service_slug | Yes | The content service slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the gateway is paid and that output is clean structured text, but lacks details on cost consumption, error handling, or authentication requirements.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, output format, and intended service type. Given the absence of an output schema, it appropriately describes return values. It lacks edge-case behavior but is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool.
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%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds the service_type context but does not provide additional parameter-level 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?
The description clearly states the tool reads web content through a paid content gateway and returns clean, structured text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it is for content services (service_type = 'content').
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 says to use this tool for content services, providing clear context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficiently specific for selection.
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 role: balance check, service discovery (list/search), service details, paid calls (onboarded vs external vs content), and credit top-up. The similar pairs (search vs search_external, call vs call_external) are separated by onboarded vs external scope, and descriptions explicitly guide selection.
All names share the 'apihub_' prefix and use snake_case, with verbs like get, list, search, call, read. However, 'balance' and 'topup' deviate from the verb_noun pattern, making the convention slightly inconsistent but still predictable and readable.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a credit-based API marketplace. Each tool serves a distinct step in the workflow (discover, inspect, call, manage funds), with no redundant tools and nothing missing at the broad level.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: searching and listing services, retrieving details, making calls to both onboarded and external APIs, reading content, checking balance, and topping up credits. Minor gaps like transaction history or service ratings exist but do not hinder the core purpose.