Fetch one public web page (buyer-supplied URL, no login walls, robots.txt honoured) and return its main content as clean Markdown with title and word count. Price $0.02 per call, paid with USDC over x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | absolute https url of a public page | |
| max_chars | No |
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 provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals the call is paid ($0.02/call, USDC via x402), that robots.txt is honoured (so some URLs will fail), and that only public pages are accepted. It stops short of describing failure modes or edge cases like JS-heavy pages that yield no main content.
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 with zero filler: the core function and constraints are front-loaded, and pricing forms a clean second sentence. Every element earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers function, constraints, return shape (title, word count, Markdown), and cost. The main gaps are sibling differentiation and failure behavior, but everything needed to invoke it correctly is present.
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 50%: url is well described ('absolute https url of a public page') and the description reinforces it with 'buyer-supplied URL'. max_chars has only numeric bounds (500-60000) in the schema, and the description adds no explicit meaning for it beyond implying output-length control.
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 ('Fetch one public web page') and precisely describes the output ('clean Markdown with title and word count'), which differentiates it from the scrape_summary sibling. The parenthetical constraints ('buyer-supplied URL, no login walls, robots.txt honoured') further define the tool's scope without ambiguity.
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 constraints clearly define when the tool is usable (public pages only, no login walls, robots.txt-compliant) but only implicitly. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over scrape_summary or the defi siblings.
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 are distinct, but scrape_markdown and scrape_summary overlap heavily, and defi_yields and yield_report both concern yield data with only presentation differences. Descriptions help clarify, but selection could still be ambiguous.
Names are descriptive but follow mixed conventions: scrape_markdown and scrape_summary are verb-first, while claim_check, token_check, defi_protocol, defi_yields, and yield_report are noun-oriented. No clear consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable, focused set for a multi-domain data service covering claims, DeFi, scraping, and token checks. It is neither too sparse nor bloated.
The surface covers the apparent domains well, with both raw data and summary variants for key areas. Minor gaps exist such as no obvious listing/search endpoint for DeFi protocols, but the core workflows are supported.