Continuous URL/page monitoring with change detection. Daily, hourly, or real-time snapshots. Webhook alerts on diff. Includes screenshot archive. Priced per URL per month ($10/URL/month, 15% off for 6+ month commits).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | List of URLs to monitor. | |
| frequency | No | ||
| webhook_url | No | ||
| alert_threshold | No | 'any_change', 'price_change', 'content_change', 'custom_regex'. | |
| duration_months | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description mentions features and pricing but omits behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, data retention, or whether changes are destructive.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff—pricing is relevant for selection but concise.
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?
No output schema; description lacks details on how results are returned, cancellation, authentication, limits—critical for a monitoring service given its ongoing nature.
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 coverage is 40%; description adds context for frequency (real-time mentioned but not in enum) and pricing linked to duration_months, but webhook_url and alert_threshold remain unclear.
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 it monitors URLs for changes with options for frequency, webhook alerts, and screenshots, distinguishing it from siblings like hsh-web-scrape (one-time scrape).
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 implies usage for continuous monitoring but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some closely related tools (e.g., hsh-b2b-*, hsh-esg-* variants) could cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might still misselect similar products.
Naming convention is mixed: some tools use hyphens (hsh-b2b-contact), others use underscores (hsh_broker_data_request). While mostly readable, the inconsistency could be confusing for agents expecting a uniform pattern.
32 tools is on the high side for a single server, but given its purpose as a data marketplace, the large number reflects a wide catalog. However, it may be overwhelming for agents to navigate.
Covers many data domains but has obvious gaps (e.g., weather, social media). The inclusion of custom data request tools (hsh_describe_data_need, hsh_broker_data_request) mitigates these gaps, allowing agents to request missing data.
