ip_range_to_cidrConvert an IP range (start - end) to the minimal list of CIDR blocks. Exact conversion of an inclusive address range to CIDR blocks, IPv4 or IPv6, up to 1,000 blocks. Price: $0.003 USDC per call via x402 (eip155:8453).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| start | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety. The description adds real operational context beyond them: exactness of the conversion, the 1,000-block ceiling (which implies a failure mode), and the $0.003 USDC x402 payment on eip155:8453, which the agent must consider before calling.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core transformation, then bounds, then pricing. The opening sentence largely restates the title, which is the only redundancy.
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?
For a two-parameter pure function with no output schema, the description covers the transformation, input domain, output shape ('list of CIDR blocks'), size limit, and cost. The missing piece is return-value detail (ordering, error behavior above 1,000 blocks).
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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it partly does: it identifies start/end as an inclusive address range accepting IPv4 or IPv6. It never specifies the string format (e.g. dotted-quad vs. bracketed IPv6) or what happens on malformed or maxLength-exceeding input.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Convert an IP range (start - end) to the minimal list of CIDR blocks'), which is distinguishable from the sibling CIDR tools (cidr_aggregate takes CIDR inputs, cidr_split subdivides a block) without opening their schemas.
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 input shape (range -> CIDR) implies the usage case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and none of the adjacent CIDR/ip_info siblings are named as alternatives. An agent has to infer the boundary itself.
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.