scrape402

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

The read-only annotation is consistent with the 'List' action. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotation by disclosing two behavioral facts: it is free and requires no session, which addresses cost and authentication concerns.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, cost, and session requirement. It is front-loaded with the action (List) and contains no filler or redundant 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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, pricing/payment info, and access constraints (free, no session), so no additional information 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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides no input semantics to clarify. The description appropriately omits any parameter discussion, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: every scrape402 tool, its price, and payment method. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the meta-listing tool rather than a specific function.

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 when to use this tool (to discover tools and prices) and adds context that it is free and requires no session, suggesting it's an entry point. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the specific model (Claude Haiku), per-token billing, and the prepaid session requirement. It does not contradict the annotations, and these details add meaningful context for an agent.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value: 'OpenAI-style' defines the API shape, 'Claude Haiku' specifies the model, and billing/prepaid are key operational constraints.

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 3-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, billing, and prerequisite. It does not describe the return format, but 'OpenAI-style chat completion' implies a standard response structure. A small gap remains, but the description is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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 only 33%, but the description says 'OpenAI-style', which conveys standard semantics for messages, max_tokens, and temperature to an agent familiar with OpenAI APIs. It does not explicitly explain max_tokens or temperature, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'OpenAI-style chat completion (Claude Haiku)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like catalog, crypto_price, funding_rates, and random, which are unrelated.

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?

It provides clear context by specifying the billing model ('billed per token off-chain') and a prerequisite ('Needs a prepaid session'). It implies use for chat completion but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it costs 1 credit and requires a prepaid session, and it emphasizes real-time data. This supplements the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states purpose and then adds essential cost/session info. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes meaning.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, and session prerequisite. It lacks an explicit return format, but given the simplicity of the tool and existing annotations, this is a minor gap rather than a significant omission.

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 parameter 'pair', with a description including example and default. The tool description only repeats the same example, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 provides real-time crypto spot prices for a trading pair, with a concrete example (BTC-USD). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like funding_rates (a different financial product) and catalog/chat/random.

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 clear context: use for real-time crypto spot prices and includes cost and prepaid session prerequisites. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the example and pricing guidance convey when it is appropriate to use, which is sufficient for a simple tool.

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 indicate read-only and open-world hints. The description adds important operational details: the cost (1 credit) and the requirement of a prepaid session. It also clarifies the behavior of the optional comma-separated coins filter, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, parameters, cost, and access requirement. Every phrase adds value, with no redundant or filler 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (funding rates), how to filter (coins), and operational constraints (cost, session). It does not describe the response shape, but given the tool's simplicity and open-world annotation, this is a minor 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a simple example ('e.g. BTC,ETH'), but the description adds the crucial semantics of 'comma-separated' and 'optional', clarifying the value format and that the parameter is not required. This enriches the schema's minimal 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 provides 'Perpetual-swap funding rates' with an optional coin filter, which is a specific resource and operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_price (prices) and chat. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 for retrieving funding rates and provides practical prerequisites (cost, prepaid session), but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The filter behavior is described, but there is no direct 'use when...' 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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the cost ('Costs 1 credit(s)') and authentication requirement ('needs a prepaid session'), which are significant behavioral traits. It also specifies the 'cryptographically-strong' property and the uniform distribution of the integer, adding meaningful context not present in annotations or schema.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes prerequisites. Every clause adds value: the randomness type, the optional integer range, and the cost/session requirements. No wasted words or redundancy with schema/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 simple utility tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, cost, session requirement, and parameter semantics. It doesn't mention edge cases like invalid ranges or insufficient credit, but these are minor gaps for a tool this straightforward. The absence of an explicit return structure is acceptable given the lack of an 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?

The schema only describes the 'bytes' parameter (1-256, default 16), leaving 'min' and 'max' without descriptions. The description clarifies that 'min' and 'max' define the range for the optional uniform integer, adding critical semantics for those parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state that 'bytes' is optional (though the schema implies it with a default), so coverage is good but not perfect.

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 generates cryptographically-strong randomness, specifically hex bytes and an optional uniform integer in [min, max]. It uses a specific verb ('randomness') and resource (hex bytes + integer), and the sibling tools (catalog, chat, crypto_price, funding_rates) are unrelated, so this uniquely identifies the tool's function.

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 notes that the tool costs 1 credit and requires a prepaid session, which is a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, no sibling tool provides randomness, so the usage context is adequately implied by the description.

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