Get a Russian IP proxy to access RU-only sites (Wildberries, Ozon, gov registries, banks) that block foreign IPs. Charged from agent balance; returns payment_required if insufficient (then call topup_balance and retry). Idempotent per agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| period_days | No |
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.
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.