SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Liquipedia Dota 2 wiki: plain-text introduction of one wiki

dev_liquipedia_esports_wiki

Read-only

Liquipedia Dota 2 wiki: plain-text introduction of one wiki page (tournament, team or player) from Liquipedia's public MediaWiki API. Dota 2 wiki only for now; the intro is the first section, not the full page. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "page": "<page>"
    },
    "name": "dev_liquipedia_esports_wiki"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	Yes	Wiki page title, e.g. The_International (underscores or spaces)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`game`	No
`intro`	No
`title`	No
`pageId`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only say readOnly and open-world; the description adds meaningful extras: cost of $0.002 USDC per successful call, x402 payment across Base/Solana/Arc, and that failed calls are free. That billing-profile detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It does not say how a missing or ambiguous page title behaves, which is the remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with what is returned before the scope limits and pricing. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything else the agent needs: scope, content truncation, and cost mechanics. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by enumerating the page categories (tournament, team, player) that the title can refer to, which the schema's single example (The_International) does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch the plain-text introduction of one Liquipedia page. It also names the domain (Dota 2 wiki), the source (public MediaWiki API), and the content types (tournament, team, player), so an agent can distinguish it from any sibling without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Dota 2 wiki only for now" and "the intro is the first section, not the full page" set clear scope boundaries on when this tool applies and when it won't satisfy a request. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for other games or full-page reads, but no sibling covers that territory.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?