AgentPay (all tools)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context the annotations lack: the per-call price and payment mechanisms (x402 or credits), which is operationally important for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 tight sentences, capability stated first, cost second. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema or 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?

For a two-parameter read-only fetch with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and cost. It could still say something about failure modes (non-HTML pages, redirects, timeouts) to be fully complete.

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% (url and maxChars are both fully documented with ranges and defaults), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 (fetch) and resource (URL) plus the three return artifacts (markdown, metadata, links), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like tools_pdf_text, but the web-page scope is clear enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 versus the lookup_* or tools_* siblings, and no note about what content types it handles or fails on. The only extra context is cost, which is not usage-selection 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 declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — the $0.005 USDC per call cost and x402/credits payment path — but says nothing about rate limits, failure modes, or resolution behavior beyond 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the cost. Zero filler; every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description plus annotations plus schema cover what an agent needs to invoke it. Cost is disclosed, though record-type defaults and return shape are left entirely to the 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 the baseline is 3. However, with no enums declared, the description's enumeration of valid record types (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, NS, TXT, SOA, CAA, PTR, SRV) adds real value beyond the schema's terse 'Record type, default A'.

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?

Specific verb ('Resolve') + resource ('DNS records') with an enumerated set of supported record types. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lookup_ip, lookup_whois, and lookup_domain_report.

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 lookup_domain_report, lookup_ip, or lookup_whois. The only contextual statement is about pricing, which does not help an agent select between siblings.

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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a per-call cost of $0.02 USDC with two payment mechanisms (x402 or credits), which an agent must know before invoking. It omits any note on rate limits or result caching, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences with zero padding; the scope is front-loaded and the cost caveat follows. Every clause carries 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what data categories come back and what the call costs. It is nearly complete; the only gap is domain-input format expectations.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% ("Domain name"), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format detail (e.g., whether a bare domain or URL is accepted), which is the baseline-3 case when the schema carries the load.

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 (domain report) and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: registration, DNS, email provider, SPF/DMARC, hosting. That implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower siblings lookup_dns/lookup_whois, but it never names those alternatives, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

"One-call domain report" implies this is the consolidated alternative to the single-purpose lookup tools, and the pricing note hints at a cost consideration, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-prefer lookup_dns or lookup_whois 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: a fixed per-call cost of $0.01 USDC and supported payment methods (x402 or credits), which affects invocation and budgeting.

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 short sentences front-load the returned data and then add the cost. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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 simple one-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers the return values (network owner, range, country, reverse DNS) and the critical cost/payment behavior. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering the parameter, no essential context is missing.

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 fully documents the single required parameter 'ip' as an IPv4 or IPv6 address (100% coverage). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter burden.

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 title and description state a specific lookup resource (IP address) and enumerate the exact data returned: network owner, range, country, and reverse DNS. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lookup_domain_report and lookup_whois, though the description itself does not explicitly name alternatives or use a direct verb like 'retrieves'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus lookup_dns, lookup_whois, or lookup_domain_report. It only states the cost, which is operational information rather than usage 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful non-annotation trait — the $0.01 USDC cost and payment paths (x402 or credits) — but says nothing about rate limits, failure behavior, or domains without RDAP records.

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 tight sentences: the capability and its returned fields come first, the pricing caveat second. Nothing is padding and the front-loading is correct.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and the cost model, which is enough to call it correctly. The unresolved overlap with lookup_domain_report and the title's unexplained 'Network Lookup' phrasing (a separate lookup_ip exists) are the remaining gaps.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'domain'. The description adds no format detail (TLD requirements, IDN handling) beyond the schema, so 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?

The description names a specific resource — domain registration data (registrar, created/expires, status, nameservers) — and the retrieval mechanism, RDAP. However, it offers no differentiation from the closely related sibling lookup_domain_report, which an agent would need to distinguish between.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus lookup_domain_report, lookup_dns, or lookup_ip. The only supplementary sentence covers billing, not selection or preconditions.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds the crucial non-schema detail that each call costs $0.005 USDC via x402 or credits. That cost/paid-invocation disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot express, though nothing is said about rate limits or failure modes.

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 purpose and then the cost constraint; every clause carries information with no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only parser, the definition covers purpose, output normalization, and the paid-call requirement. With no output schema, a hint about the normalized item fields would have made it fully complete, but nothing essential for invoking it is missing.

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 both 'url' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no format guidance (e.g., accepted URL schemes, limit bounds) beyond 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 (Parse) and resources (RSS, Atom, JSON Feed) plus the output shape (normalized JSON items). No sibling tool handles feeds, so an agent can select this unambiguously from extract_page, tools_sitemap, or the lookup_* tools.

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 says what it does but never states when to use it or when to prefer an alternative; with no sibling handling feeds there is little routing ambiguity, but no context or prerequisites are offered either. A note on when a feed URL is appropriate versus extract_page would have earned credit.

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 (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description's job is to add other traits — and it does, disclosing the $0.01 USDC per-call charge under x402 or credits, which is genuinely decision-relevant. It stops short of describing failure behavior or whether extraction is cached/async.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraint followed by the cost. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 simple read-only single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers action, input limit, and pricing — enough to call it correctly. It could still note the return shape (page-delimited text) but that gap is minor.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents 'url'. The description's 'up to 20MB' constraint adds a little practical meaning, but nothing about accepted URL schemes or edge cases beyond 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 (Extract) and resource (per-page text from a PDF URL), with the key constraint (up to 20MB) inline. Sibling tools are unrelated lookup/feed utilities, so no differentiation is required and none is needed.

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 prefer this over extract_page or any alternative, no mention of what happens with non-PDF URLs, password-protected files, or scanned PDFs. The size cap and cost are constraints rather than 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 declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the pricing model ($0.005 USDC per call, x402 or credits) and that sitemap indexes/robots.txt are followed. It stops short of noting failure cases, crawl politeness, or result 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?

Two tight sentences; the core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the cost detail is a compact parenthetical. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and cost. With no output schema, a brief note on what the returned URL list looks like would have closed the remaining 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 both parameters (url, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or semantics beyond that, which makes the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (a site's URLs from its sitemaps), plus the resolution behavior (follows robots.txt and sitemap indexes). This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like tools_feed or extract_page without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — use it to enumerate a site's URLs — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g., tools_feed for RSS/Atom discovery). The robots.txt note gives context but not selection guidance.

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