Skip to main content
Glama

DeriveAI x402 APIs

by io.github.deriveit33z-ship-it

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).

Input Schema

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

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping functionality, such as domain_infra, company_report, and due_diligence all covering DNS/WHOIS/SSL checks. Similarly, web_scrape and scrape_structured both extract website content, and verify_email overlaps with email_audit on DNS-based email checks. This creates ambiguity in tool selection, especially for agents looking for a specific type of analysis.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase with underscores, which provides a consistent style. However, the grammatical pattern varies: some are verb-object (verify_email, currency_convert), some are noun-noun (domain_infra, site_audit), and others are adjective-noun (arabic_sentiment, brand_scout). This is not chaotic, but it lacks a rigid verb_noun convention, making it slightly less predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 25 tools, this sits at the upper boundary of what is considered 'heavy' but is still usable. The server covers a wide range of domains (Arabic NLP, web scraping, domain/email analysis, finance, faith), so the count is justified to a degree, but agents may be overwhelmed by choice. It is borderline appropriate for such a broad utility server.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers many common operations (scraping, DNS checks, email verification, financial data), but there are notable gaps. For example, no generic translation tool exists, only Arabizi-to-Arabic, and there is no text generation or embedding. While the set is extensive, it is not fully comprehensive for the diverse domains it touches, leaving some obvious missing operations.

Resources