ScrapeMole Arxiv

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description appropriately spends its budget on the payment trait: paid tool via x402 USDC on Base at $0.002 per successful call, plus the behavior of calling without payment (returns a PaymentRequired object). This is valuable context beyond annotations, though error/edge behavior is only partially 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?

Front-loaded with the "Use when" trigger, then field list, then payment terms. It is a single dense passage with no wasted sentences, though the run-on structure and external-doc reference slightly reduce scannability.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and payment behavior, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The id format is deferred to an external reference and no output schema confirms field types, leaving 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single id parameter. The description adds little beyond a pointer to "/v1/arxiv/paper" for id rules and does not restate id format details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (returns a compact abstract card for an arXiv id) and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, title, summary, author names, primary category, published/updated, absUrl, pdfUrl). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the fuller sibling by noting the absence of affiliation/journal/comment fields.

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?

"Use when you need a compact abstract card... without full affiliation/journal/comment fields" gives a clear selection condition and implicitly routes agents needing those extra fields to arxiv_paper. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or spell out a when-not clause, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the result cap, the return shape ('same fields as search, plus totalResults for paging'), the default sort order, and — critically — the paid-tool mechanics: x402 USDC on Base at $0.003 per successful call, with an unpaid call yielding a PaymentRequired object. That payment behavior is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct payload: when to use, the required param with examples, return shape and paging, and the payment model. The usage trigger is front-loaded and nothing is redundant padding.

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 read-only, 5-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the key parameter, the return fields (by reference to search) and paging, and the payment flow. The one gap is that the return field list is defined only by reference to a sibling tool, so an agent must open arxiv_search to know the exact response shape.

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 100%, so every parameter including the enum sort modes is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates cat examples and the submittedDate-descending default rather than adding format or constraint detail the schema lacks, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource ('papers in one arXiv subject class') and pins the selection scope to a single category, which an agent can separate from keyword-style siblings. It also references 'the same fields as search', implicitly acknowledging the sibling search tool, but never names arxiv_search or arxiv_paper explicitly to contrast against.

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?

'Use when you want the latest or relevance-ranked papers in one arXiv subject class' gives a clear triggering condition and sketches the ranking options. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. 'use arxiv_search for keyword queries across categories'), so the routing decision still requires inference.

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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds important non-annotation behavior: it is a paid tool using x402 USDC on Base at $0.002 per successful call, and calling without payment returns a PaymentRequired object. It also discloses that author emails are removed and that omitting a version returns the latest version.

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 front-loaded with the usage condition and then systematically lists returned fields and payment behavior. It is dense but every sentence contributes relevant information; the only minor cost is the lengthy field enumeration in one sentence.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the metadata fields returned. It also covers input formats, version behavior, and payment requirements, leaving no major gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the single id parameter is already described. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by giving both new-style and old-style examples, explaining optional version suffixes, and stating that no version returns the latest version.

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 retrieval operation: given an arXiv id, return its public metadata card. It lists the exact resource and scope, and the condition 'when you have an arXiv id' distinguishes it from sibling tools like arxiv_search or arxiv_category that do not require an id.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition and concrete id formats (new-style, old-style, versioned), plus version behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the highest bar for routing 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?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description earns credit for adding details annotations cannot carry: the 25-result cap, the exact result fields, the payment model, and the payment-required-on-first-call behavior. These are genuine operational traits beyond the 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?

Front-loads the use case, but the run-on sentence stringing the 25 result fields together is dense, and the field enumeration reads like a spec dump rather than discriminating guidance. The payment note is buried at the end but is at least clearly placed.

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 no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so thoroughly (fields, totalResults for paging, sort options). It covers payment, sorting, and paging adequately for an agent to call it correctly; only minor gaps remain around rate limits or error shapes.

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 schema documents each parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond it by supplying concrete, correct query-syntax examples (au:, ti:, cat:, AND) that make the q string actionable, though it does not explain start/paging interplay in depth.

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?

States a specific verb (search/discover) and resource (arXiv e-prints) and enumerates the query modes (keyword, title, author, field). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings arxiv_abs, arxiv_paper, and arxiv_category, which presumably deal with a single identifier rather than free-text discovery.

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?

"Use when you need to discover arXiv e-prints by keyword, title, author or field query" gives a clear triggering condition, and the query examples show acceptable inputs. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling like arxiv_paper (for a known ID), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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