Convert any RSS or Atom feed into JSON with a single API call, paying $0.01 USDC per request. Use this to standardize feed data for easier parsing, filtering, or integration into automated workflows.
Fetch any RSS/Atom feed and return it as JSON ($0.01 USDC/call).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Feed URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a cost of $0.01 USDC per call, which is useful, but does not disclose error handling for invalid URLs, response structure beyond 'JSON', timeout behavior, or whether authentication is required. For a paid API, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and return type, then appends the cost. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and avoids redundancy.
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 one-parameter fetch tool, the description is mostly complete but leaves out important practical details. It does not specify the JSON structure (e.g., whether items are arrayed), how malformed feeds are handled, or if there are URL length limits. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description could be richer, but for such a simple tool it is adequate.
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% with the parameter 'url' described as 'Feed URL'. The description adds the qualifier 'any RSS/Atom feed', which reinforces that the URL must point to a feed and not a general webpage. However, this is minimal added meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool fetches RSS/Atom feeds and returns them as JSON. It specifies the resource type (RSS/Atom) and the action (fetch), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402_news or x402_read that serve different content types. The one-sentence description is unambiguous about its core function.
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 usage for RSS/Atom feeds but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. While the purpose is specific, there is no guidance on edge cases like whether it handles only feed URLs vs. general web pages, or how it differs from x402_read. The absence of exclusions or alternatives leaves the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.