MONEYGRID

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: the tool is paid, returns timestamped hashed evidence, and resolves current public DNS A-record data. No contradiction with 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 tight sentences front-load the core identity ('Paid read-only domain intelligence'), then explain behavior, output, and the intended use case. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 single-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what it does, the nature of the output, the paid aspect, and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide on and invoke the call.

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 schema already documents the single 'url' parameter as a public http/https URL whose hostname is inspected. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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?

States a specific verb-resource pairing ('resolves current public DNS A-record data') and names the output ('timestamped hashed evidence'). The 'Paid read-only domain intelligence' framing clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gridextract_markdown, gridverify_evidence, and gridwatch_preflight.

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 says when to use the tool: 'when an agent needs current domain/DNS evidence without maintaining its own resolver.' It gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of the full 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?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior-tweak. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the operation is paid, returns bounded output, and includes an evidence hash and receipt metadata. It repeats 'read-only' from the annotation, but the additional behavioral signals are meaningful. It omits failure modes or rate limits, though the core behavior is transparent.

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 short sentences with no filler: a compact label, a behavior statement, and a usage condition. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids redundancy. Every sentence 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 one-parameter tool with read-only/idempotent annotations and no output schema, the description captures the essential behavior, output components, and usage context. It doesn't specify exact boundaries or pricing details, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly. Minor omissions prevent a perfect score.

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% for the single url parameter, including format and description. The description's 'one public web URL' reinforces the schema but doesn't add new semantic meaning. With full schema coverage, a baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetches one public web URL and returns bounded clean text plus evidence hash and receipt metadata.' This precisely identifies the tool's action and output. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like griddata_domain and gridverify_evidence, which target different resources and operations.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use when an agent needs compact machine-readable page content.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the provided context is clear enough for routing.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations cannot express: this is a paid call costing $0.05, and it returns a response-sample hash and timestamp. It omits any mention of rate limits, failure/error behavior, or what happens when the URL is unreachable.

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 first front-loads the paid, read-only preflight purpose and its outputs, the second delivers the exclusion boundary. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the cost is placed where an agent will see it immediately.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies cost, what is checked, and a partial picture of the return payload (hash, timestamp). An agent still lacks detail on error outcomes and the exact response shape, but the core decision inputs are present.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('Public http/https evidence URL including scheme'), so the schema already carries the full burden. The description adds no format, constraint, or example detail beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 correct.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('URL evidence preflight') and enumerates what it checks (HTTP accessibility, operational risk flags) plus what it returns (response-sample hash, timestamp). The explicit 'does not fact-check...' boundary sharpens the purpose further. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling gridwatch_preflight, which an agent could easily confuse with this preflight tool.

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 strong negative scoping clause: it does not fact-check claims, establish source credibility, or verify factual truth, which tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice. It does not, however, name an alternative tool to use instead, nor state prerequisites beyond the URL being public http/https.

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, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: the $0.02 cost, refusal of private/local hosts and malformed URLs, and the guarantee that unreachable/upstream failures are surfaced explicitly rather than fabricated. The anti-hallucination guarantee is exactly the kind of trait an agent cannot infer from 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with cost and purpose, then scope, then return values and failure semantics. Every clause carries information and none is redundant.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so (reachability, HTTP status, latency, risk flags, SHA-256 evidence) plus failure behavior. An agent has everything needed to decide and call 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% with a single documented 'url' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of rejecting private/local hosts and malformed URLs restates the schema constraint rather than adding new parameter syntax or format guidance.

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 ('read-only endpoint preflight') with scope ('before an agent depends on or pays an unfamiliar API, webhook or URL') that clearly separates it from siblings like moneygrid_fetch (which presumably fetches) and gridverify_evidence.

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 condition — use it before depending on or paying for an unfamiliar endpoint — which is unusually actionable. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or spelling out when-not to use it (the private/local rejection is a constraint, not a routing rule), so it falls just short of the top band.

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 readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, and the description still adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot express: a $0.01 per-call cost, the 100k character ceiling, SHA-256 provenance in the payload, the rejected host/scheme/URL/size/timeout classes, and the fact that failures surface explicit upstream status. That is unusually rich disclosure for a read 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?

Front-loads the decisive cost-and-default signal ('DEFAULT ($0.01/call)'), then purpose, then limits and failure modes in three dense, waste-free sentences. Nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant fact comes first.

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 correctly carries the return contract (size cap, metadata, timestamp, provenance) and covers cost and error behavior, so an agent can call it correctly. The one omission is any statement of how it relates to gridextract_markdown or gridverify_evidence, leaving an overlap unresolved.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the same private-host and nonstandard-port rejection rule the description repeats. The description adds little beyond the schema for this parameter, so the baseline of 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 ('Fetch fresh content from one public HTTP/HTTPS URL') plus the payload returned ('up to 100k characters of machine-ready text with source metadata, timestamp and SHA-256 provenance'). An agent can tell it is a general web-retrieval tool, but the description never contrasts itself with the sibling gridextract_markdown, which plausibly overlaps, so it stops short of a 5.

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 for web retrieval when you need current source content' gives explicit context for when to reach for this tool, and the rejection list sketches its boundaries. It offers no when-not guidance and names no alternative tool, so the agent gets context but no routing rule between it and its siblings.

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