X1-BaaS Scraping API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly stating that no authentication is required and by listing what the tool returns (pricing info, supported networks, payment instructions). No contradiction with annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The final 'Returns:' line is somewhat redundant with the preceding sentence, but it is not verbose enough to cause confusion or dilute the message.

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 that this is a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, and that no authentication is required. Nothing material is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no meaningful parameter information. The description correctly focuses on the query's result rather than inputs; a baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the description to clarify.

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 states a specific verb ('Check'), a clear resource ('current pricing and payment requirements'), and the scope ('BaaS scrape engine'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like scrape and server_status because the topic is pricing, not scraping or server health.

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 clearly establishes the context for use: whenever current pricing, payment requirements, or supported networks are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is narrow enough that no confusion with the sibling tools is likely.

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?

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete behaviors: automatic retries with escalating waits, domain cooldown, 5-minute response caching, sanitization (strips scripts/ads), and the use of Mozilla Readability. It even explains what happens with bypass_cache and javascript execution. Nothing contradicts the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint annotations.

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 long but efficiently organized: a one-line purpose, a compact list of formats, a bulleted capability list, then an Args block with defaults. Every sentence adds operational value, and the most decision-relevant information (formats, key behaviors) is front-loaded.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description includes everything needed to invoke it correctly: required URL format, all parameter defaults and semantics, output options, behavior on failure, caching, and a Returns section. The output schema presence and annotations further round out the picture, leaving no critical gaps.

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 carries the entire burden of explaining all 9 parameters. The Args section describes every parameter with types, defaults, allowed values, and examples (e.g., wait_for_selector '.article-content', javascript 'window.scrollTo(0, 1000)'). This fully compensates for the empty 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 opens with a clear, specific verb-resource pair ('Scrape a URL and return content') and then enumerates supported output formats (markdown, screenshot, pdf, csv, html), which precisely scopes the tool. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools get_pricing and server_status, whose purposes are unrelated.

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 effectively communicates when to use this tool by detailing its capabilities (JavaScript rendering, anti-bot bypass, DOM cleaning, caching, etc.). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, making the appropriate context unambiguous.

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?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by naming what the agent will actually receive: browser status, uptime, x402 payment mode, and context count. No contradiction with annotations.

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 first sentence is strong and the return-field list is useful, but the final 'Returns: Server health and diagnostic information' repeats what the preceding sentence already stated. The description is compact but not every sentence 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 zero parameters, strong safety annotations, an output schema, and unrelated siblings, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool correctly. It names the expected diagnostic fields and leaves no meaningful gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool is appropriate, and the description sensibly focuses on outputs instead.

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 states a clear action ('Check') and a specific resource ('BaaS engine health and operational status'). It also enumerates concrete return fields, making its purpose unambiguous and clearly distinct from the unrelated sibling tools get_pricing and scrape.

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 makes the usage context clear: this is a health-and-status diagnostic call. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but none of the siblings are plausible substitutes, so no exclusion is strictly needed.

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