bsv.cx

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the capture includes screenshot and text, is timestamped on-chain, and is free. It does not cover rate limits, error handling, or processing time, but the core behavior is adequately 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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: action and output, usage guidance, and cost. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the main capability.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the output (screenshot, text, on-chain hash). It could mention return format, but it is sufficient.

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 100% for the two parameters, so description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on the 'thorough' parameter or add usage context for 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?

The description clearly states the tool captures a web page (screenshot and text) and anchors a hash on-chain. It uses specific verbs 'Capture' and 'anchor', and distinguishes from siblings like get_archive (retrieve) and notarize_hash (just hash).

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 says 'Use this before relying on a page you cite' and explains the benefit of preventing denial of edits or deletions. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, 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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that each hash gets an inclusion proof, the transaction is single, and there's a free tier with pricing. Could elaborate on idempotency or failure modes, but overall sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with primary benefit, no redundant information. Efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key differentiators.

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?

Lacks output schema but mentions inclusion proofs for each hash. Provides pricing and usage context. Could detail response format or error handling, but overall complete for a timestamping tool.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description. The description adds context about Merkle root and transaction, but the schema already explains the parameter well, so baseline 3.

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 anchors a Merkle root over many sha256 digests in a single transaction, distinguishing it from the sibling notarize_hash by emphasizing batch efficiency and inclusion proofs.

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 compares to notarizing each one individually, stating 'far cheaper per item', and mentions pricing structure (10 free calls, then per call). Provides clear context for when to use this batch tool over alternatives.

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, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches a manifest and that it is 'Free,' but does not detail side effects, permissions, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic 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?

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence plus one word ('Free.')—and front-loads key information. Every part earns its place with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately explains the purpose and parameter. It could add detail about the manifest format, but is sufficient for the context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema's own description of the 'hash' parameter, merely reinforcing that it comes from a previous capture.

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 action ('Fetch the manifest') and the resource ('previous archive_url capture'), and specifies what it includes ('when it was taken, and its proof'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_url, which creates captures.

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 after archive_url by referencing 'previous archive_url capture,' but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.

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 effectively discloses key behaviors: on-chain transaction, free, idempotent, privacy-preserving. It misses potential side effects like transaction fees or confirmation time, but covers the essential 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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose, privacy, cost, idempotency all in compact form. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 and lack of output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (privacy, idempotency, cost). It does not detail return format or errors, but is sufficient for basic 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 already describes both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by reinforcing that 'sha256' must be sent alone and that 'label' is optional and public, addressing privacy and usage beyond 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 uses specific verb 'anchor' and resource 'sha256 digest in a Bitcoin SV transaction', clearly defining the action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'archive_url' or 'verify_hash' by focusing on timestamping a hash.

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 tells users to send the hash and emphasizes that content never leaves the user's machine, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for different cases, but the usage is well implied.

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 explains the free-trial pool has a per-caller cap and that 'open' means pool availability, not personal balance. This adds useful behavioral context beyond what is obvious, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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, front-loaded with the key purpose, and each sentence adds value. There is no wasted text.

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 explains the return values (anchoring working, pool status) and clarifies the trial pool concept. This is complete for a simple status-checking tool.

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, and schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the baseline is 4. No additional parameter semantics are 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 clearly states the tool reports anchoring status and free-trial pool status, with a specific verb ('Report') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like archive_url and notarize_hash, which are about archiving or verification, not status checking.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call this if a tool reports something stored but not anchored.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool, even though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it fetches a URL and returns a receipt for proof, and includes pricing information (10 free calls, then per call). It does not address failure modes or size limits, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 sentences succinctly convey the tool's action, key feature (proof), and pricing. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information 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?

Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the unique proof aspect and pricing. Minor missing details like the return format (text and receipt) would improve it, but it is sufficient for an 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (url and thorough). The tool description adds overall context but no extra details specific to each parameter. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (fetch a URL), the result (readable text and receipt), and the unique value of providing a cryptographic proof. It distinguishes itself from siblings like archive_url or verify_hash by combining fetching with proof generation.

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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. However, the context of providing verifiable proof is implied, which gives some guidance.

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 the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool is free, never rate-limited, and returns anchoring time and the proof transaction. It does not specify behavior for a hash not found, which would be helpful. Still, the key behavioral aspects are covered.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose. 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it defines input, output (anchoring time and transaction), and service characteristics. The only missing detail is behavior for missing hashes, which is a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the parameter sha256 having a pattern and description. The description adds 'the sha256 hex digest to look up', which is essentially the same as the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate, as no significant extra meaning is added.

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 looks up a sha256 across all bsv.cx protocols, listing specific protocol types. The verb 'look up' and resource 'sha256' are specific, and the scope is explicitly delimited, distinguishing it from siblings that may be protocol-specific.

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 when to use: to check if a hash is anchored across any of the listed protocols. It also mentions it's free and never rate-limited, reassuring availability. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, though sibling names suggest other tools for specific actions like notarizing or archiving.

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