x402tools

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

The description discloses the payment requirement and the retry pattern for obtaining _payment requirements, which is crucial behavioral context. No annotations exist, so the description carries this burden. It could mention rate limits or error handling but is adequate for a screenshot tool.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences front-load the core purpose and key features, followed by cost. Every sentence earns its place without 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 9 parameters and payment complexity, the description covers primary capabilities and the payment retry flow. It lacks output format details and limits, but the param descriptions mitigate some gaps. Not fully complete but well above minimum.

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 value by grouping features ('dark mode, full-page, and element selection') that correspond to parameters (darkMode, fullPage, selector), enhancing comprehension beyond individual 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 clearly states 'Capture a screenshot of any website' with specific features (dark mode, full-page, element selection), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like render_pdf or dns_lookup.

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 cost mention ($0.005 USDC) hints at a condition but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative names are provided, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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 bears full responsibility. It mentions a cost ($0.002 USDC on Base) but fails to disclose rate limits, authentication details (beyond payment), error behavior, or any side effects. For a paid tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating cost info). Minimal waste.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return format or behavior. It does not specify what is returned (e.g., JSON object, raw text), error handling, or pagination. Incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 no extra meaning beyond the schema; the domain parameter is obvious, and the _payment parameter has extensive schema documentation. No additional interpretation provided.

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 it looks up DNS records and lists specific record types (A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, SOA) for any domain, with a specific verb and resource. No sibling tool does DNS lookups, so it's well-distinguished.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling tools are unrelated, so context is clear, but the description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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 present, so description must cover behavior. It mentions cost but fails to disclose that a first call without _payment is needed to get requirements, nor does it clarify idempotency or return value shape.

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?

Description is a single sentence, very concise. However, it lacks structure and does not front-load important details like payment flow or required parameters. It earns its place but is too brief.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify that at least url or image must be provided, nor does it explain the special _payment parameter or return format.

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 3. Description adds no additional parameter context beyond what schema provides. Fine but no extra value.

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?

Description clearly states tool extracts text from images using OCR, with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like capture_screenshot or parse_document.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives provided. Cost is mentioned but guidance on when to use vs other tools is absent. Usage is implied for OCR tasks.

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 carries the burden. It discloses the cost ($0.001 USDC) and that the result is a base64 PNG, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, side effects, or detailed payment flow, leaving significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by output and cost. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary repetition or fluff. It is an excellent model of conciseness.

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?

While the core functionality is clear, the description omits important context: it states 'Returns PNG image as base64' but the schema allows svg and png formats directly, causing potential confusion. No error scenarios, success response structure (beyond base64 string), or prerequisite for payment are mentioned. The cost hint partially compensates, but gaps remain.

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 minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema—only confirming the output format (PNG base64) and implicitly the text/URL input. The critical _payment parameter is fully described in the schema, so the description does not compensate further.

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 verb 'generate' and the resource 'QR code from text or URL.' It specifies the output format (PNG as base64) and mentions cost, making the purpose unambiguous. Although not explicitly contrasted with sibling 'generate_styled_qr', the plain QR generation is contextually distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_styled_qr'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred. The only hint is the cost mention, but that does not guide usage decisions.

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 discloses the cost, a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explain that payment must be provided via the _payment parameter for the tool to work. Since no annotations exist, the description should provide more details about prerequisites and return behavior, which are lacking.

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 cover purpose and cost without redundancy. The description is efficiently front-loaded with the primary function.

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 complexity (10 parameters, payment requirement, multiple output formats), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the process, required setup, or what the output contains. The lack of output schema and minimal description leaves gaps for an agent to effectively use this 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no specific parameter details beyond the generic reference to 'custom shapes, colors, and gradients'. It does not enhance understanding of individual parameters like 'dotType' or 'format'.

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 'Generate an artistic/styled QR code with custom shapes, colors, and gradients', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'generate_qr' which likely produces plain QR codes. The verb 'generate' and resource 'artistic QR code' with customization options provides specific purpose.

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 cost ($0.005 USDC on Base) which implies a paid use case, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like plain QR generation. The context of sibling tools suggests differentiation but no direct comparison is given.

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 exist, so the description must carry behavioral details. It mentions auto-detection and cost, but omits payment requirement, error handling, size limits, and update semantics. Some useful context is present but incomplete.

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 key info (input, output, auto-detection, cost). No redundant or verbose content.

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?

Missing critical context: output format details, error behavior, payment requirement (only in schema), and constraints. For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, more completeness is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—mentions auto-detection but no new parameter meanings. Payment parameter is detailed in schema, not 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 parses HTML/PDF URLs into structured JSON, with auto-detection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_screenshot (visual) or extract_text_ocr (images).

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 use for parsing public HTML/PDF but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., payment required).

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 mentions a cost of $0.005 USDC, which is a key behavioral trait beyond schema. However, with no annotations, it omits other important details like rate limits, idempotency, or whether the tool is synchronous. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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: the first clearly states the action and input types, the second adds the cost. No superfluous words, well-structured and 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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain the mutual exclusivity of html and url, nor the payment flow. Adequate for a simple operation but leaves gaps for new users.

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 all parameters described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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 tool converts HTML or URLs to PDF, which is distinct from sibling tools like capture_screenshot (screenshots) or parse_document (document parsing). The verb 'convert' and resource 'raw HTML or a public URL' are 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to prefer render_pdf over capture_screenshot for web content. Lacks context for selection.

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 mentions cost and detection of 10 attack categories, but lacks details on behavioral traits like false positive rates, that the tool may modify text when redacted=true, or that it requires payment. It provides basic transparency but not deep behavioral context beyond what annotations would require.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the key purpose. No extraneous 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 does not explain the return value or output structure, which is important for a screening tool. It mentions 'redact flagged snippets' but not whether results include categories or scores. With 5 parameters and no output schema, more completeness is needed.

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 parameters. The description does not add further meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining sensitivity levels). Baseline 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 tool's purpose: screening text for prompt injection and jailbreak attacks before passing to an LLM. It specifies detecting 10 attack categories and mentions cost. No ambiguity and no sibling tools offer similar functionality.

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 context ('before passing it to an LLM') but does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to, or provide alternatives. With no annotations, this is adequate but not explicit.

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?

Cost and checks are disclosed, but the description says 'Checks ... SMTP deliverability' unconditionally, while the checkSmtp parameter is optional and defaults to false, creating a slight ambiguity. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Missing details on return format and error handling.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded key information. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence provides value.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of purpose and cost. However, lacks return value description, rate limits, or idempotency notes. For a validation tool, it's fairly complete but could be slightly richer.

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 all parameter descriptions. Description adds context on what checks are performed, which helps understand the 'email' parameter, but does not add significant additional meaning beyond the 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Validate and verify', resource 'email address', and lists specific checks (syntax, MX records, SMTP, disposable domains) and output (risk score). Distinct from all sibling tools which perform unrelated tasks.

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?

Implies usage for email validation and mentions cost ($0.003 USDC) as a consideration, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor compare to alternatives. Siblings are different types, so no direct competition, but guidelines could be clearer.

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