x402-scraper

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a $0.03 USDC micro-transaction cost, which is real value the schema cannot convey, but it says nothing about return format, timeout/rendering limits, failure behavior, or whether a wallet balance is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The differentiating capability comes first and the cost caveat is appended compactly — 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what comes back and how it differs from scrape_basic. It covers the capability and the cost, but an agent still lacks return-shape and alternative-selection information.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about the 'url' parameter (format, whether redirects/relative URLs are accepted, page-level options). With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 ('Scrapes') and a concrete resource class ('JS-rendered SPAs, React apps, and dynamic pages'), which tells an agent this is the heavyweight rendering path. It does not explicitly name scrape_basic as the counterpart, so the sibling differentiation is left to inference from the 'advanced' naming.

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 mention of JS-rendered/dynamic pages implies when this tool is appropriate versus a static scraper, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of scrape_basic when...' routing or any exclusion. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the $0.01 USDC micro-transaction cost and the static-content limitation, which are useful traits. However, it omits payment/auth mechanics, rate limits, and output or rendering behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no wasted words. Appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 scraper, the description covers the core action and cost. Yet the sibling relationship with scrape_advanced remains implicit, and return format or payment flow is not clarified, which an agent may need when selecting between the two tools.

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 for the single required url parameter is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. It adds no format, constraints, or examples for the URL, leaving the parameter largely self-explanatory but undocumented.

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 the specific verb 'Scrapes' and resource 'static web page content'. The word 'static' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling scrape_advanced, but the description never names or directly contrasts with that sibling, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The phrase 'static web page content' hints that dynamic pages are out of scope, but there is no instruction on choosing this tool over scrape_advanced, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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