Website Change Monitor & Deterministic Diff

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=false, yet the description still adds real value: terminal-state no-op behavior, the fact that updated run details are returned, and a required x402 payment signature in _meta. The payment/auth prerequisite is exactly the kind of operational context the schema 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?

Well front-loaded: the core action and state constraint come first, followed by no-op conditions, usage, and payment prerequisites. The labeled USAGE/USAGE EXAMPLES blocks with 'user_input:' lines are slightly redundant padding, costing it the top mark.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the description's state preconditions and the x402 payment requirement, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so runId and gracefully are already fully documented, including the 30-second graceful timeout. The description's example ('Gracefully abort run y2h7sK3Wc') implies the flag but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (Abort) applied to a specific resource (Actor run) and narrows the scope to runs 'currently starting or running'. This is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings like get-actor-run and get-dataset-items.

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 states when to reach for it ('stop a run that is taking too long or misconfigured') and when it is a no-op (runs already SUCCEEDED, FAILED, ABORTING, ABORTED, or TIMED-OUT). The when-not condition is unusually precise and prevents wasted calls.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a hard prerequisite the structured fields cannot express: an x402 payment signature must be supplied in _meta, or the call fails. It also explains the blocking semantics of waitSecs and what summary/nextStep contain, which is real behavioral context on top of readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Well front-loaded: the purpose leads, followed by return contents, usage, and examples under clear labels. It is somewhat longer than necessary — the two user_input examples largely restate the usage bullets — but nothing is genuinely wasteful.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return shapes need no explanation), the description still clarifies what summary and nextStep mean, covers the blocking behavior, and surfaces the payment requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including waitSecs' range, default, and terminal-state list. The description restates waitSecs (0-45, default 30, blocks until terminal) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, 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+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific Actor run') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (status, storages, stats, summary, nextStep). This is clearly distinguishable from the mutation sibling abort-actor-run and from the storage readers get-dataset-items / get-key-value-store-record.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use to check the status of a run started by any Actor-running tool') and conditional behavior for waitSecs > 0. It does not name when NOT to use it or point to an alternative tool for cancelling/waiting differently, so it stops short of full when/when-not 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 the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the description's added value is the payment requirement ('requires an x402 payment... include a valid x402 payment signature in _meta') plus the default limit of 20 and the clean=true shortcut semantics. The payment/auth disclosure is meaningful context annotations cannot express, though return/pagination behavior is left unstated.

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 core purpose and scope, followed by trigger condition, examples, and payment notice. The USAGE/EXAMPLE blocks are somewhat verbose but each line carries usable information; no wasted restatement of annotations.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the key operational extras (payment protocol requirement, default pagination, clean flag) are present. Missing only explicit guidance on alternatives/non-use cases for a fully documented multi-param read 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 coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only echoes limit default and clean semantics, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('get items (rows) from a dataset') and explicitly scopes it against adjacent capabilities: 'Returns the rows themselves, not dataset metadata, counts, or a schema.' An agent can distinguish this from metadata/count-style tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('When the user provides a datasetId and asks to retrieve results, output, data, or rows, call this tool directly') plus two concrete usage examples. It does not name an alternative sibling or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of the top tier.

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 the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add what they cannot: the x402 payment requirement including the exact metadata location (_meta["x402/payment"]), the client capability needed, and the Content-Encoding/decompression behavior of the response. These are material operational facts an agent would otherwise discover only by failing.

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 core operation and scoping constraint, then USAGE and payment details in logical order. The usage examples are somewhat verbose and partly restate the store-ID format already in the schema, but nothing is confusingly 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. Combined with full annotation coverage and 100% parameter documentation, the description supplies the two things structured fields cannot: the payment protocol requirement and the decompression caveat.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond that — "requires the exact key name" and the record-type hint (JSON, text, or binary) — while store ID format is already in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the value stored under a specific key in a key-value store") and immediately scopes it against the obvious confusion point: "a single record, not a listing of all keys." An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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 retrieve a specific record (JSON, text, or binary) from a store" gives clear context, reinforced by two concrete usage examples. However, no alternative tool or negative condition is named (e.g., when to list keys instead), so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the agent already knows this is a non-read-only, potentially destructive, open-world operation. The description adds valuable context: x402 payment is required via _meta["x402/payment"] and the client must support the protocol. It does not explain what 'destructive' means here or what side effects (writes, cost) occur beyond pricing.

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 short but mixes three things: tool mechanics, Actor marketing blurb with a price, and the x402 protocol requirement. The pricing sentence ('$0.001 per successful comparison') is somewhat promotional. The payment prerequisite is front-loadable but appears after the Actor marketing line.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, the tool is a wrapping Actor call with a required payment protocol and destructiveHint=true, and the description does not clarify the relationship to sibling run/dataset tools, nor the cost model implications. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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 all 10 parameters thoroughly, including url, selector, waitSecs, previous_hash, previous_text, and diff/text char limits. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the x402 meta key. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb and resource: it calls the Actor 'industrial_platform/web-change-intelligence' and retrieves its output. The Actor description adds a concrete capability — 'Website change detector and deterministic diff API' for monitoring pricing, availability, docs, and competitor pages. That distinguishes it well from generic run tools, though it's framed as an Actor-invocation rather than stating the underlying task directly.

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 (detecting website changes, monitoring pages) but does not explicitly say when to use this versus siblings like get-actor-run or get-dataset-items. The x402 payment note gives a prerequisite, but conditional routing guidance ('use this when you need a diff, not just a fetch') is absent.

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