AgentPay Doc Tools

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.