Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DeriveAI x402 APIs

by io.github.deriveit33z-ship-it
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

company_report

Full company report ($1.00). The mega-report: 25+ parallel checks in one call. WHOIS/domain age, SSL certificate, sanctions screening, web archive history, security headers (7 types), email infrastructure (SPF/DKIM/DMARC/blacklists), full DNS records, CDN detection, subdomain discovery, SEO analysis, social presence, tech stack, Lighthouse performance, legal pages. Returns scored verdict (0-100).

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "company_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesCompany domain to investigate (e.g., stripe.com)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the cost ($1.00) and the nature of the checks but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or any limitations of the checks (e.g., data freshness). The description gives a good overview but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is information-dense, listing many checks in a compact list format. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the list is somewhat long. Still, it serves the purpose of conveying the tool's comprehensive nature efficiently.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's broad scope, the description covers the major categories of checks and even mentions the output format (scored verdict 0-100). It does not list every possible check but provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the report includes and what to expect as output.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The sole parameter 'domain' is already well-described in the schema ('Company domain to investigate (e.g., stripe.com)'). The tool description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: generating a comprehensive company report with 25+ parallel checks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by enumerating the specific data points it covers (WHOIS, SSL, sanctions, DNS, etc.), making its scope explicit and unique.

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?

The description implies usage: it is the 'full' and 'mega' report option, suggesting it should be used when a comprehensive analysis is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like domain_enrich or site_audit, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over more specialized tools.

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

All DeriveAI x402 APIs toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources