Research a topic across stealth web sources, apply CanaryGuard injection filtering, and return a structured markdown intelligence dossier.
Multi-source stealth web synthesis + CanaryGuard injection firewall + structured markdown intelligence dossier. Price: 0.02 USDC on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | Research depth | comprehensive |
| topic | Yes | Research topic or target entity |
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 does add genuine behavioral context: the tool costs 0.02 USDC on Base (a payable call, presumably x402) and includes an injection firewall, which matters for trust. It still omits latency, source count, failure behavior, and what the firewall actually blocks.
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 the capability statement front-loaded and pricing last. Sizing is appropriate, though the jargon density slightly hurts immediate comprehension.
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 two-parameter paid research tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers cost and security posture but leaves return shape, depth semantics, and source scope unexplained. Adequate minimum, but gaps remain for correct invocation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, and 3 is the correct baseline. The description adds nothing about the 'depth' values (no enum, no enumeration of levels) or how 'topic' is scoped to an entity, so it does not improve on the schema.
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?
It conveys that this is a research tool producing a markdown dossier from multiple web sources, which distinguishes it loosely from siblings like research_topic_news_scanner and stealth_scrape_and_sanitize. But the core wording is buzzword-stacked ('stealth web synthesis', 'CanaryGuard injection firewall'), so the actual operation is inferred rather than stated with a clear verb+resource.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the nearby research/news/scrape siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess whether 'comprehensive' research is warranted over research_topic_news_scanner.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.