get_exampleFree: a real recorded answer of any paid YRUZ tool, so you can see exactly what it returns before you pay. Pass the tool name (e.g. web_extract, site_audit, solana_token_check); without it, lists every paid tool with its price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | tool name from tools/list, e.g. web_extract |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety burden is light. The description still adds real value by disclosing that the payload is a stored, real recording rather than a live invocation — a fact not derivable from annotations and important for interpreting freshness.
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, no filler, with the 'free/recorded preview' hook front-loaded and the parameter behavior immediately after. Every clause carries information.
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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both invocation modes, and output provenance. It could say slightly more about how large or what form the recorded answer takes, but nothing essential is missing.
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 100% and already names the 'tool' parameter with an example. The description goes beyond it by explaining the omitted-parameter behavior (lists all paid tools with prices) and giving multiple concrete name examples, which the schema lacks.
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 concrete verb and resource: returns a real recorded answer from any paid YRUZ tool so the caller can preview output. This clearly distinguishes it from the paid sibling tools themselves (web_extract, site_audit, solana_token_check), which are named as inputs rather than competitors.
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?
Explicitly frames the use case (inspect output before paying) and the two modes: pass a tool name for a sample, or omit it to list all paid tools with prices. It does not explicitly say when to switch to the actual paid tool, but the 'before you pay' framing strongly implies the boundary.
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.