Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@melis-ai/x402-tools-mcp

@melis-ai/x402-tools-mcp

by mizukaizen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

web_synthesise

Synthesize answers from multiple web sources. Submit a query and receive a consolidated answer with citations.

Instructions

[$0.05 USDC] Multi-source web research synthesis. Pass a query, get a synthesised answer with citations.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "web_synthesise"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNo
queryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions cost ($0.05 USDC) and output (synthesized answer with citations), but lacks details on required permissions, rate limits, data handling, or potential side effects. The behavioral profile is incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads cost and clearly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (web research synthesis with citations), the description is insufficient. It lacks information on output format specifics, error handling, parameter 'depth' semantics, and any constraints (e.g., source quality, time boundaries). The absence of annotations and output schema further increases the need for a richer description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'Pass a query', which relates to the 'query' parameter, but does not describe the 'depth' parameter, its enum values (quick/deep), or their implications. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs multi-source web research synthesis and returns a synthesized answer with citations. It is a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scrapepay or structextract, which are more about extraction than synthesis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for web research synthesis, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools