agent-web-reader

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: the tool is paid (cost per use), requires an x402 payment header, and returns specific fields. No contradictions with annotations; additional cost and input requirements are disclosed.

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 covering purpose, output, cost, and use case. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition. Front-loaded with key information.

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 fully explains the tool's purpose and use context (crawl/RAG). With 100% schema coverage and annotations, it is sufficiently complete for selection. A more detailed output structure description could be added, but the current text conveys what the agent receives.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the x402_payment parameter: 'omit to get the payment challenge.' This provides practical guidance beyond the schema's technical description.

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 fetches any http(s) URL and returns clean readable text, metadata, and outbound links as JSON. This specific verb+resource (fetch URL) distinguishes it from siblings like crypto_market_signal and github_repo_seo_audit.

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 in crawl/RAG loops ('data an agent ingests on each step of a crawl/RAG loop') and mentions the cost (paid x402). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context.

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?

Description discloses the paid nature, the payment flow (x402 with challenge), and the enriched output data. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context without contradiction.

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 sentence that packs much information, but it is slightly dense; it could be broken into two sentences for clarity. 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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description lists all returned fields. It covers input, payment, and output sufficiently. Lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but acceptable for a tool with annotations.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the payment parameter's behavior (omit to get challenge) and clarifying that IDs are CoinGecko IDs.

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 explicitly states the tool returns crypto market data (price, market cap, 24h change, etc.) for CoinGecko IDs, with a derived momentum score and signal. It clearly distinguishes from unrelated sibling tools like agent_web_reader and github_repo_seo_audit.

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 the payment requirement ($0.005 USDC via x402) and the input format (comma-separated IDs). However, it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, though siblings are unrelated.

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 adds some behavioral context by stating it's paid, but the annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description does not fully disclose the payment mechanism or the two-step flow for the x402_payment parameter. It does not contradict 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading key information (paid, purpose). It efficiently conveys the tool's action and output. Minor improvement would be to mention the payment parameter.

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 explains the return values (score 0-100, grade, fixes) and the input fields (owner, repo) but omits the x402_payment parameter. The payment aspect is critical for usage, and the lack of detail on the payment flow makes the description incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the two required parameters (owner, repo) by specifying they are GitHub identifiers. However, it omits the third parameter (x402_payment) entirely, leaving its purpose unclear.

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: to score a GitHub repo's SEO based on README, description, topics, etc., and return a score, grade, and fixes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (agent_web_reader, crypto_market_signal) by its specific focus and output.

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 the tool is paid (x402, $0.005 USDC on Base), which is important usage context. However, it does not explain when to use it versus alternatives (though siblings are unrelated) or how to handle the payment flow (e.g., when to omit the x402_payment parameter to get a challenge).

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