Fetch infiniFi's live llms.txt documentation index to get canonical doc titles and URLs. Use it to locate official docs without scraping protocol metrics.
Fetch infiniFi's live llms.txt index of canonical documentation URLs. Returns titles and URLs, not scraped protocol metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the index is 'live' and that the response contains titles and URLs rather than metrics, which is meaningful return-shape context. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or caching freshness beyond 'live,' so it is adequate but not rich.
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 tight sentences with zero filler; the identity of the resource is front-loaded and the exclusion clause follows immediately. Every clause 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?
With zero parameters and no output schema, the description partially compensates by describing the return shape (titles and URLs, not metrics). That gives the agent enough to invoke the tool correctly, though a note on freshness or scope limits would round it out.
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 schema takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming the tool takes no input, which it implicitly does.
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 (Fetch) and resource (infiniFi's live llms.txt index of canonical documentation URLs). It explicitly excludes the metric-style content of its siblings with 'not scraped protocol metrics,' so an agent can distinguish it from get_token_supplies, list_registered_farms, and get_farm_state without opening any schema.
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 phrase 'not scraped protocol metrics' functions as a clear when-not signal that routes the agent away from the metrics siblings and toward this tool for URL discovery. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or prerequisite, so it falls just below the top band.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.