Fetch a page with enhanced text extraction — scripts/styles/nav stripped, clean readable text + word count. 5 credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public http(s) URL | |
| api_key | Yes | Your DACIX API key (dacix_sk_...). Get one with store_register. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that scripts, styles, and nav are stripped, and provides word count and credit cost. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or size restrictions.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and output, with no wasted words.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, output type, and cost. However, it could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., JSON or plain text) and any limitations.
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%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions 'enhanced text extraction' but does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a page', and specifies the enhanced text extraction output. It distinguishes from sibling tools like web_crawl and web_search.
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 fetching a single page with text extraction but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like web_crawl or web_search. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.