Russian Web Data Access for AI Agents

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only, auth requirements, or side effects beyond the unit detail.

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?

Extremely concise (twelve words, one sentence) with no redundant information. Front-loaded purpose.

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?

Adequate for simple read operation but lacks output format details and error conditions. No output schema, so description should specify return structure more explicitly.

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 has agent_id with 0% description coverage; tool description adds no meaning to the parameter, leaving agent_id entirely undefined.

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?

Description clearly states the action (get) and resource (agent balance) with specific unit (kopecks). It distinguishes from siblings like topup_balance.

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?

Implies usage for checking balance but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives. No guidance compared to topup_balance.

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 disclose behavioral traits. It only states it checks availability and is free, but does not disclose return format, side effects, rate limits, or what happens if the domain is unavailable. This is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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 front-loads the main action. Every word serves a purpose with no 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?

Given the single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks detail on return values (e.g., boolean, response structure). For a check tool, this is insufficient for an AI agent to interpret 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some meaning by specifying allowed TLDs (.com/.ru/.рф). However, it does not clarify input format (e.g., with or without TLD, example) beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it partially compensates but not fully.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'domain', with specific TLDs (.com/.ru/.рф). It differentiates itself from siblings like register_ru_domain (registration) and check_balance (balance inquiry).

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 mentions 'Free, no balance needed,' which implies it can be used without cost, suggesting it's safe to use anytime. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like register_ru_domain for registration.

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 present, so description carries full burden. Discloses Russian IP and residential proxy for antibot, but does not detail rate limits, authentication needs, or failure modes.

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 examples, no redundancy, front-loading key specialization details. Highly 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core specialization (IP location, residential option). Could mention error cases or limitations, but sufficient for standard 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 has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning to 'url' as Russian site/API and 'residential' for antibot, but 'agent_id' is unexplained. Adds some value but not comprehensive.

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's a Russia specialization of fetch_web for any Russian site/API, with specific examples like Wildberries and Ozon, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Implies usage for Russian sites and mentions 'residential=true for hard antibot,' providing guidance on when to use the residential parameter. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative 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 provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses billing behavior, country-specific IP, residential vs datacenter, and JS rendering. Lacks specifics like timeout, rate limits, or exact response format, but covers major behaviors.

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?

Packed with information in a single paragraph. Front-loaded with main function. Could be broken into multiple sentences for easier parsing, but no waste.

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?

No output schema, but explains return of HTML/JSON and payment_required on insufficient balance. Covers core functionality, billing, and edge cases. Missing timeout or rate limits, but acceptable given tool complexity.

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 0%, but description adds meaning to all parameters: url (any), render (JS rendering), country (IP location), agent_id (billing), residential (bypass datacenter blocks). Provides context well beyond bare 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?

Description clearly states it fetches content from any URL via chosen country IP, handles HTML/JSON, and positions itself as flagship tool. Differentiates from siblings like fetch_ru and get_ru_proxy by covering all URLs and countries.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: URL in, content out, no proxy setup. Provides guidance on country='ru' for Russia-only sites, residential=true for datacenter-blocking, render=true for JS-heavy sites. Also explains billing and what to do on insufficient balance.

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 burden. It discloses key behaviors: charging from agent balance, returning payment_required on insufficient funds, and idempotency per agent. This is valuable information for an AI agent.

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?

Three sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second covers cost and error handling, the third states idempotency. Perfectly front-loaded 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 description covers the main use case and error handling, but lacks details on the successful response format (e.g., what the proxy details look like). With no output schema, this leaves the agent guessing. It also does not relate to sibling tools like fetch_ru which might consume the proxy.

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 0% description coverage, and the description fails to explain the parameters (count, agent_id, period_days). It only mentions 'Charged from agent balance' but does not clarify what each parameter means or how they affect the proxy.

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: 'Get a Russian IP proxy to access RU-only sites...' and lists specific examples like Wildberries, Ozon, etc. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fetch_ru or fetch_web by focusing on proxy provision.

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 indicates when to use the tool (accessing RU-only sites) and provides an explicit alternative: if insufficient balance, call topup_balance and retry. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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. The description discloses that the service is charged from balance, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on destructive effects, rate limits, or responses.

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 front-loading the action and domain. It is efficient but omits important details that would justify slightly more length.

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, zero param descriptions, and limited context signals, the description fails to provide enough information about prerequisites, response format, or idempotency behavior, making it incomplete 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?

With 0% schema coverage and no parameter descriptions in the tool definition, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Parameters like agent_id and idempotency_key are unexplained.

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 registers a .ru/.рф domain and mentions it is a secondary service charged from balance. It implies the specific TLDs and financial aspect, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_domain or fetch_ru.

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 mentions it's a secondary service, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., check_domain for checking availability) or prerequisites like having sufficient balance.

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 carries full burden. It discloses that execution happens in an isolated sandbox with no network, CPU/RAM/time limits, and that charges apply. This gives the agent a good understanding of important behavioral traits such as resource constraints and billing.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence clearly stating the action and output, and the second addressing billing. Every word adds value. It is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, sandbox constraints, return values, and billing. It lacks details on parameter formats or default values, but the overall information is sufficient for using the tool 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?

The schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description must add meaning. It mentions supported languages ('python / javascript / bash'), which relates to the 'language' parameter, and implies that 'code' is executed and 'timeout' affects runtime. However, it does not explicitly describe each parameter's format or constraints, leaving some gaps.

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 what the tool does: run agent code in a sandboxed environment. It specifies supported languages (python, javascript, bash) and what is returned (stdout, stderr, exit_code). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_web or check_balance, which have 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?

The description explains that running code costs agent balance and returns 'payment_required' if insufficient, with a suggestion to top up and retry. This provides clear context for when to use the tool and what to do if balance is low. It does not explicitly state scenarios where the tool should not be used, but the context implies it's for executing code.

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 burden. It states that the answer should be 'short,' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only or destructive, side effects, or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a submission tool.

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: two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists the specific options 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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the question parameter and answer style. However, it omits context like what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, storage) and any prerequisites. It is minimally complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially. It explains the 'question' parameter with valid values and their meanings, and hints that 'answer' should be short. However, it does not explain 'agent_id', leaving one parameter completely 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Help improve this service: tell us what you need.' It explicitly lists the survey questions, making the action (submitting feedback) unambiguous. The sibling tools are unrelated (check_balance, fetch_web, etc.), so there is no confusion.

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 clear context by enumerating the valid question options (need_data, why_no_pay, etc.), which guides when to use each. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives, but the sibling tools serve different purposes, making guidance sufficient.

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 provided. Description discloses return value (pay_url) and payment rails, but lacks details on authorization, side effects, or failure modes.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then key details. No wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple operation, explains purpose and return value, but lacks parameter details for email and amount_minor, and no output schema.

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 0%. Description only adds meaning to 'rail' (usdc or rub), ignoring email, agent_id, and amount_minor parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'Top up agent balance' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_balance which is read-only.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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