Extract JSON from up to 10 public URLs in isolated ephemeral compute, validating each result against its own JSON Schema and returning a reconciled idempotent manifest. $0.02/call via x402; unused execution is refundable when delivery fails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does it well: it discloses isolated ephemeral compute, per-item schema validation, idempotent manifest behavior, the $0.02/call cost, and refundable unused execution on delivery failure. It stops short of explaining failure modes for invalid URLs or schema mismatches.
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?
The description is one compartmentalized paragraph with two coherent sentences. It fronts the core extraction behavior, then supplies key constraints and costs. No redundant language or filler.
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?
The description is largely complete for selection purposes: batch size, public-only URLs, schema validation, isolation, idempotency, cost, and refund behavior are all covered. Lacking an output schema and annotations, it still leaves a few questions around failure modes, but it gives strong enough context for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
The description adds some semantic meaning to the parameters: 'up to 10 public URLs' maps to items, and 'reconciled idempotent manifest' implies the role of idempotency_key. However, it never directly explains that idempotency_key must be supplied to make retries safe, and with schema coverage at 0%, the description has gaps around the exact structure and semantics of the items array.
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 states a specific verb and resource: extract JSON from up to 10 public URLs. It adds distinctive scope (isolated ephemeral compute, per-URL JSON Schema validation, reconciled idempotent manifest) that clearly separates it from single-extract or non-validating siblings like extract_json or batch_url_json.
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 when to use the tool: for batch JSON extraction from public URLs with schema validation and a paid x402 call. It clearly implies a multi-HTTP-URL batch scenario, but it does not explicitly exclude private URLs or direct users to alternatives like extract_json or batch_url_json.
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.
Several tool groups are nearly indistinguishable: wallet_analyze, wallet_spy, and base_wallet_profile all inspect wallets; batch_extract, batch_url_json, and x401_batch_extract all batch-extract URLs; route_task, agentcore_route, and mpp_route all perform routing. An agent would need to read very carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.
All names are snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or namespace pattern: many are noun-only (inference, echo, sentiment, server_time), some are prefixed by domain (bazaar_, base_, x402_, rep_), and action prefixes vary widely (fetch_, compile_, extract_, purchase_, route_). The naming is readable but not predictable across the set.
Seventy tools is an extremely large surface for an agent to choose from, and most appear to be independent paid service wrappers. This exceeds the 50+ extreme mismatch threshold in the calibration and creates an overwhelming selection problem.
Relative to its apparent purpose—exposing x402 payments and Bazaar market data—the coverage is extensive: diagnostics, preflight, settlement verification, receipt lookup, wallet checks, Bazaar analytics, web extraction, and text processing are all represented. The main gaps are operational side-effects like creating or updating a Bazaar listing, but those appear to be outside this read/purchase surface.