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, and the description adds the x402 payment model ($0.003, USDC on Base) and credit cost, which is valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence description, front-loaded with the core purpose and including essential payment details without any waste 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?

The tool is simple; the schema fully covers the parameter and annotations cover safety. The missing output format is a minor gap, but the purpose implies the return value, and the payment context is extra useful information.

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%, with the 'pair' parameter documented with format and default. The description's mention of BTC-USD is redundant with the schema, so it adds minimal semantic value 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?

Description clearly states the tool provides real-time spot price for a trading pair with an example (BTC-USD). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like funding_rates, which serves a different purpose.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (real-time spot prices) and mentions the payment model, which is important for usage decisions. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use 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?

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact cost structure ($0.003 USDC on Base per call or 1 credit with prepaid session). It also notes the optional comma-separated coin filter, which is a behavioral input trait. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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, compact sentence that includes the core purpose, the optional filter behavior, and the payment model in a clear and efficient manner. Every part of the sentence adds value, with no redundant or fluff content. It is ideally front-loaded with the primary functional description.

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?

Given that this is a simple read-only data-fetching tool with a single optional parameter, the description provides sufficient context for invocation: what it returns (funding rates), how to filter (comma-separated coins), and what it costs. The absence of an output schema is acceptable here because the resource type is self-explanatory and no complex return structure is implied.

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 covers the single parameter 'coins' with an example, but the description adds the crucial 'comma-separated' format and explicitly marks it as optional. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema's minimal type/example. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description adds format detail, the score is above the 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose as providing perpetual-swap funding rates, which is a specific financial resource distinct from the sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', but the noun phrase 'Perpetual-swap funding rates' communicates the resource unambiguously. The optional coins filter is also mentioned, adding scope clarity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crypto_price or catalog. It mentions the optional comma-separated filter, which is parameter usage rather than tool-selection guidance. There are no explicit usage scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions when this tool should be chosen over others.

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 readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description adds important behavioral context including per-call pricing and the cryptographic strength guarantee. It also clarifies that the integer is optional and uniform, which shapes expected output.

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, with the first sentence front-loading the core functionality and output, and the second adding pricing details. It is concise and free of redundant phrasing.

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 tool, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and cost, but it could be more explicit about the exact return structure (e.g., JSON format) and edge cases like min > max. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema only documents the bytes parameter, leaving min and max without descriptions. The description compensates by explicitly stating that the integer is uniform in [min, max] and that bytes generates hex bytes, thereby clarifying all three parameters effectively.

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 explicitly states the tool generates cryptographically-strong randomness, specifying both hex bytes and an optional uniform integer. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_price and funding_rates, which serve entirely different purposes.

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 clear usage context by highlighting cryptographic strength and payment requirements, implying it is for secure random generation with costs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so this level of guidance is sufficient.

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