Agent Newsstant

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'live-fetch', indicating real-time data retrieval. However, it does not disclose if the operation is read-only, whether there are rate limits, whether caching applies, or what happens in error cases. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 very short (single sentence) and technically concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While it front-loads the key information, it does not earn its place because it omits parameter info and usage context. A score of 3 reflects adequate brevity yet significant incompleteness.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description should be able to provide complete context. However, it lacks any mention of the parameter, return format, time frame, or data sources beyond 'FRED calendar'. The agent cannot fully understand what this tool returns or how to use it without additional assumptions.

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 0% and the description does not mention the sole parameter 'limit' or its default value of 25. The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which itself provides no documentation. This is insufficient for correct tool invocation.

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 it provides 'Upcoming US economic release dates' from 'FRED calendar, live-fetch', which is a specific verb+resource. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'List', but the intent is clear. It distinguishes from siblings like 'macro' or 'earnings' by specifying US economic release dates. A 4 is appropriate because the verb is implied rather than explicit.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'macro' or 'earnings'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions, providing no decision-making context for the agent.

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?

No annotations are present, and the description provides no behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data freshness, rate limits, or required permissions. The description carries the full burden for transparency and fails entirely, leaving the agent without any behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (6 words) but at the expense of necessary information. It is under-specified, not earning its place as a helpful guide. A longer, more informative description would be justified.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, symbol format, days range, or any usage constraints. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the description alone.

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 0%, meaning the input schema has no parameter descriptions. The description only adds 'venue symbol' nuance to the 'symbol' parameter but does not explain 'days' (default 30) or any format requirements. This is insufficient to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Daily OHLCV candles for a venue symbol' implies retrieval of price data, but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'. It is somewhat clear but does not differentiate from siblings like 'history' or 'macro' which may also provide historical data. A more specific verb and scope would improve clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'history', 'search'), the description offers no context for selection. The agent is left to infer usage without any criteria.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, costly, or requires authentication. The agent has no insight into what happens or what data is returned.

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 sentence with 6 words, which is too terse. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to earn its place because it provides no actionable information. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness.

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?

Given the complexity of a 'full trading context' tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and 14 sibling tools, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the scope of data, or how it differs from related 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The 'days' parameter (default 30) is completely unexplained, while 'symbol' only gets implied context from the tool name. The agent cannot infer how to use 'days' correctly.

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 'Full trading context for a tokenized asset' is vague. It does not specify a verb (e.g., 'get', 'retrieve', 'fetch') nor clearly differentiate the tool from siblings like 'candles', 'history', or 'earnings'. It fails to convey what specific data constitutes 'full context'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('next earnings date') which is likely non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly state safety or lack of side effects. There's no mention of rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid symbols. The description is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and wastes no words. While it could benefit from more detail, it is not overly verbose. A score of 4 reflects efficient use of space without being incomplete to the point of harm.

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?

Given the low schema coverage (0%), the lack of output schema, and the presence of non-required parameters with defaults, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify what a 'rolling calendar window' means in practice (e.g., forward-looking vs backward-looking), how multiple symbols are handled, or the format of the output. More context is needed for reliable agent usage.

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 0% (the schema has no descriptions for parameters), so the tool description must compensate. It mentions 'days' implicitly via 'rolling calendar window' and 'symbol' explicitly, but doesn't explain the meaning of default values (e.g., days=7 means look ahead 7 days) or constraints. This adds some clarity but leaves ambiguity.

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's purpose: 'Next earnings date for a symbol, or a rolling calendar window'. It uses specific terms ('earnings date', 'symbol', 'rolling calendar window') that convey the resource and scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'calendar' or 'history', which could also involve date-related data, so it misses the top score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'calendar' (broader events) and 'history' (past data), an agent would benefit from knowing that this is specifically for upcoming earnings dates, not historical earnings or other calendar events, but such context is absent.

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 provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'No payment' but does not disclose what happens to the submitted feedback (e.g., if it's logged, if the agent receives a response, or any rate limits). The behavioral transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 short (one sentence with a list) and front-loaded with 'FREE feedback'. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without extraneous text, though the examples could be more concise internally.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 params, 1 required), the description is mostly complete for its straightforward feedback purpose. However, with no explanation of the 'category' parameter's purpose and an output schema present but unaddressed, it could better prepare the agent for what happens after submission.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only adds meaning for the 'wanted' parameter via contextual examples. The other three parameters ('contact', 'context', 'category') are not explained at all—no guidance on format, acceptable values, or when to provide them.

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 is for providing feedback about missing or problematic aspects of the API, using specific examples like 'missing endpoint, wrong output shape, price objection, bug'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a free-form feedback mechanism rather than a data retrieval or action tool.

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 the tool should be used when the user needs something that isn't provided by other endpoints, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs. other tools or provide exclusions. The context example 'FREE feedback' suggests it's for unmet needs, but no direct comparison to alternatives is given.

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 transparency burden. It states only the basic promise of returning latest SEC filings, but does not disclose details like what types of filings are included, how many are returned, or the output format. This lack of behavioral context is a notable 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 front-loaded sentence that accurately conveys the core purpose without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple and has no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits important context such as how 'n' affects results and the specific nature of the filings, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 0% for the 2 parameters. The description indirectly explains 'symbol' via 'equity symbol' but makes no mention of 'n', leaving its meaning and impact unexplained. The description does not compensate for the schema's silence.

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 identifies the tool's function: returning the latest SEC filings for an equity symbol. It distinguishes itself from siblings like earnings, calendar, and history by focusing specifically on SEC filings, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 intended use is implied by the description—use when you need the latest SEC filings for a stock. No explicit guidance is provided about when to prefer this over alternatives, such as earnings or history, nor are there exclusions.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation (historical data retrieval) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. The mention of 'daily closes + range change' only hints at output shape without full transparency.

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 fragmented phrase rather than a well-structured sentence. While short, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. Under-specification rather than conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should fully explain the return value. 'Daily closes + range change' is vague—does it return one object per day? What is the range change formula? The tool is simple (2 params), but the description omits essential details about the output structure, making it incomplete.

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 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the parameters. The phrase 'for a symbol' loosely suggests the 'symbol' parameter, but the 'days' parameter and the meaning of 'range change' are not elaborated. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Daily closes + range change for a symbol' clearly indicates the tool returns daily closing prices and a range change metric for a given symbol. It is specific about the data resource, though it lacks an explicit verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'candles' (OHLC) and 'calendar', but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'candles' for detailed OHLC data or 'context' for broader market data. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or context in which this tool is appropriate.

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 present, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It mentions 'search' and 'extraction', implying a read operation, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand safety or impact.

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 very short (single sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it lacks necessary detail that would make it earn its place; it is not so much concise as underdeveloped. A 3 is appropriate for minimal viability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description omits essential context about return values, parameter constraints, and usage scenarios. It is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior or handle results correctly.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no explanations for parameters. The description does not address any of the three parameters (q, limit, country), failing to add meaning beyond variable names and types. This severely impairs correct invocation.

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 a specific verb ('search') with a modifier ('location-targeted') and a distinctive outcome ('place-link extraction'). It indicates a resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'place', which may cause ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search' for general queries, 'place' for details). There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'release flags' but does not explain what they mean, nor does it disclose data source, update frequency, or behavior (e.g., real-time vs. cached). Minimal but not misleading.

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?

Single sentence with 11 words, front-loaded with core purpose and specific examples. No fluff; every word 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient by naming the indicators. It could be improved by briefly noting the output format or that it's a snapshot, but the simplicity keeps it 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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds meaning by listing the types of indicators included (CPI, NFP, U3, oil), which provides semantic value beyond the empty 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides 'Latest US macro indicators' and lists specific indicators (CPI/NFP/U3/oil) with release flags. The verb 'get/retrieve' is implied, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying a focused set of economic indicators.

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 fetching US macro data but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With zero parameters, the tool is straightforward, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned relative to siblings like 'calendar' or 'context'.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'local search + business website content' without explaining whether the tool is read-only, what data it returns, how it combines results, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise but not effective. It sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity, failing to earn its place as a useful guide. The front-loaded phrase 'Compound: local search + business website content' is not a clear action statement.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools with similar domain (local, search), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, or how it differs from alternatives, providing no value for correct selection or 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 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the three parameters (q, country, max_chars). The description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation but fails to explain their roles, formats, or constraints, leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the parameter names.

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 'Compound: local search + business website content' is vague and lacks a clear verb. It does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., search, retrieve, combine). The tool name 'place' is a noun, and the description is a label rather than a functional statement, making it difficult for an agent to understand the intended operation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'local' (likely for local searches) or 'search' (general search). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states only that the output is 'clean Markdown', but does not mention what happens if the URL is invalid, blocked, or requires authentication. It also does not clarify whether the tool handles JavaScript-rendered pages, rate limits, or returns any error messages. This lack of transparency could lead to unexpected failures.

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 extremely concise at only six words, which is efficient but borderline under-specified. It front-loads the purpose, but could be improved by adding a few more words about what the tool does without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, contextual complexity, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'clean Markdown' means (e.g., stripping ads, navigation, only main content), nor does it address potential issues like JavaScript rendering or large page handling. For a tool that fetches arbitrary web content, more detail is needed for reliable agent usage.

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 0%, and there is only one parameter ('url') with no description in the schema. The tool description does not add any semantics about the URL format (e.g., must be fully qualified, supported protocols, etc.). With a single required parameter, the baseline expectation is moderate, but the description should at least clarify that it accepts any valid HTTP/HTTPS URL.

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 'Any public URL as clean Markdown' clearly indicates that this tool takes a URL and returns its content in Markdown format. It is distinct from siblings like 'screenshot' (which captures an image) and 'url_safety' (which checks URL safety). The verb 'read' is specific, but the resource is implied as web content.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'screenshot' for visual content or 'search' for finding information. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations (e.g., paywalled sites, dynamic content), or expected use cases. The description is too minimal for an agent to decide between read and other tools.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states 'public URL' implying no authentication needed, but does not disclose rate limits, rendering behavior, timeouts, what happens to non-viewport content, or potential errors (e.g., blocked sites). The behavioral profile is severely incomplete.

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 extremely concise (5 words). It is front-loaded with the core action and subject. However, it sacrifices important details for brevity. A 4 reflects that while it is not verbose, it omits critical information that a slightly longer description could cover without becoming wordy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to specify output details beyond 'viewport PNG', such as resolution, scroll handling, or error states. An agent cannot reliably predict tool behavior from this description alone.

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 0% for the single 'url' parameter. The description adds only 'any public URL', which does not clarify format (e.g., must include scheme), accepted domains, or validation rules. The agent gains little semantic meaning beyond knowing a URL string is required.

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 explicitly states 'Screenshot of any public URL (viewport PNG)'. The verb 'screenshot' is implied by the tool name, and the resource is clearly any public URL. The format 'viewport PNG' adds specificity. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'read' or 'url_safety', which serve different purposes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues (e.g., 'use this to capture visual content for analysis'). Sibling tools like 'read' or 'url_safety' might overlap in URL processing, but no comparative advice is given.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the tool is 'token-efficient', hinting at concise output, but does not disclose pagination behavior (cursor parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. The behavioral traits are insufficiently described.

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 very short (6 words) and to the point, but it sacrifices essential information. While it is concise, it is under-specified and lacks structure. The phrase 'Token-efficient search results (google/bing/yandex)' is a single sentence without front-loading of key details, and the brevity does not serve the agent well.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, or any important behavioral constraints. The agent would have to guess or rely on the parameter names alone, which is insufficient 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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, meaning the parameter names and defaults are the only clues. The description provides no additional meaning for any of the five parameters (q, limit, cursor, engine, country). It does not explain what 'q' is, how 'limit' works, or the purpose of 'cursor' for pagination. The description adds zero value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns search results and mentions three major search engines (google/bing/yandex), indicating it performs web searches. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'local' or 'history' which may also involve search functionality. The verb 'search' is implied but not explicitly stated as a verb; the phrasing 'search results' is acceptable.

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 only mentions 'Token-efficient' as a potential usage hint, suggesting it favors compact results, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'context', 'local', or 'history'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what resource is returned, but does not mention idempotency, data freshness, pagination, or any side effects. For a tool requiring no parameters, the behavior is simple, but there is no explicit confirmation that it is a safe read operation.

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 extremely concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded with the key concept 'Tradeable'. Could be slightly more descriptive, but for a param-less tool this is sufficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the returned universe looks like (e.g., list of asset symbols or objects). It only says 'Tradeable asset universe' which is vague. While the intended use may be clear from context, it lacks explicit completeness regarding output format.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, but no additional info is needed.

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 explicitly states 'Tradeable asset universe (Hyperliquid xyz DEX)', clearly identifying that this tool returns the list of tradeable assets on the Hyperliquid DEX. No tautology; it distinguishes from siblings like 'candles' or 'calendar' which serve different purposes.

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 tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that this should be called before querying other data tools that require an asset identifier, nor does it explain any prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses captcha/bot-wall handling, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits important aspects such as whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, rate limits, or error responses for non-public URLs.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core action and a notable feature. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, earning its place efficiently.

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 or annotations, the description must provide a complete picture for the agent. It fails to explain the return format (raw HTML string), the impact of 'max_chars', or potential pitfalls (e.g., large pages). This lack of detail could lead to incorrect invocation or unexpected truncation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Any public URL' adds context for the 'url' parameter (must be public), but 'max_chars' is not mentioned, leaving its purpose (truncation) and relationship to output unclear. Partial compensation reduces the score from the baseline of 4.

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 'Any public URL as raw HTML (captcha/bot-wall handled)' clearly states the tool fetches raw HTML from a URL and handles obstacles like captchas. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'screenshot' (image output) and 'read' (likely text extraction), making its purpose specific and actionable.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read' or 'screenshot'. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., private URLs) or contexts where the tool is unsuitable, leaving the agent without comparative direction.

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 provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the purpose but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether it is read-only), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. 'URL reputation check' implies a query but leaves the agent guessing about operational traits.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it incomplete for an agent. It could be restructured as a clear action statement while maintaining conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the check returns (e.g., boolean, risk score), whether it is synchronous or cached, or any usage caveats. An agent would lack enough context to use it reliably.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'url', and the description does not add any semantic value beyond the schema's title 'Url'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, e.g., by specifying URL format, constraints, or examples.

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 'URL reputation check (malware + phishing)' clearly indicates the tool's function: checking a URL's safety regarding malware and phishing. It uses a specific resource and domain, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'calendar' or 'place'. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'check'), relying on a noun phrase.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. With 14 sibling tools, including some that might involve lookup or search, the lack of usage direction is a significant gap.

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