Russia specialization of fetch_web (country='ru'): content of any Russian site/API through a Russian IP (Wildberries, Ozon, Yandex Market, gov registries, banks). residential=true for hard antibot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| residential | No |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but fetch_ru and fetch_web overlap in functionality (fetch_ru is a specialization). However, descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., check_balance, fetch_web, topup_balance). Minor deviation like run_code is still in line.
9 tools cover the core functionality well without being excessive or insufficient. Each tool has a clear role.
Covers key operations: fetching, proxy, domain management, balance, code execution, and feedback. Missing advanced features like proxy rotation or pagination but sufficient for primary use.