Check the remaining free credits on your pagewatch key, plus the per-call prices and, if the key is not switched on yet, the free activation link to give your human. Pass api_key if you did not configure an Authorization header.
api_key: an existing pagewatch bearer token, optional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses returned data (credits, prices, activation link) and optional api_key. Implicitly read-only, but does not explicitly state safety or potential side effects. Adequate for a balance query.
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?
Exceptionally concise: two sentences plus parameter line. Front-loaded with main action, 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 single optional param, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers core functionality and key condition. Could mention error handling (e.g., invalid key) but not critical for selection. Sibling tools unrelated, so no confusion.
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, but description adds full meaning: 'api_key: an existing pagewatch bearer token, optional.' Clearly explains purpose and when to use, compensating for schema gap.
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 verb ('check') and resource ('remaining free credits, per-call prices, activation link'). It distinguishes from siblings (none check balance) and specifies the output scope.
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?
Provides clear condition for passing api_key ('if you did not configure an Authorization header'). No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use mentioned, but context is sufficient for a simple check tool.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: balance checks credits, pdf converts pages to PDF, read_page extracts markdown, register creates API keys, and screenshot captures images. No overlapping functionality.
Tool names are lowercase and descriptive, with 'read_page' using an underscore while others are single words. This minor inconsistency is easy to overlook but prevents a perfect score.
Five tools cover the core needs of a web page tool: key management (balance, register), content extraction (read_page), and output formats (pdf, screenshot). The count is well-scoped for its purpose.
The tool set covers key lifecycle and primary page actions. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to delete or manage keys, but balance and register provide sufficient functionality.