webcap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is 'aggregate only,' which is a key behavioral trait, and 'use to see real usage' suggests a read-only observation tool. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the absence of writes. For a simple aggregate query this is minimally adequate but not richly 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?

The description is only two sentences long. The first sentence names the funnel and its components, front-loading the most important information. The second sentence adds a limitation and a use case. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail – every word 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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned funnel represents. It lists metrics but leaves terms like '402 challenges' and 'funded watches' undefined, which could confuse an agent about interpreting results. It also does not explain how the 'hours' window changes the aggregation. It is adequate for invoking the tool but not 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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter 'hours' with its default (168 = 7 days), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail about how the time window affects the funnel metrics; it does not mention the parameter at all. Since the schema handles the parameter well, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate – no added value but no deficiency.

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 as an agent-income funnel and enumerates the specific metrics it aggregates (reach, 402 challenges, trial claims, paid calls, distinct paying wallets, funded watches). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like webcap_trial_claim_analyze or webcap_analyze, which focus on narrower aspects. The absence of an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' is a minor gap, but the overall purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Aggregate only; use to see real usage' gives a clear use case and a limitation: this tool provides aggregate numbers, not detailed breakdowns. It implies when not to use it (if you need per-record data), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions for selecting siblings. The guidance is present but not fully fleshed out.

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 no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the $0.01 cost, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it does with the fetched URL, or what the output will look like.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the key facts (cost, operation, target, task types) with no filler. Every element 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?

There is no output schema and the description says nothing about the return value or format of the analysis, which is central to an analysis tool. The cost warning helps, but the overall context is incomplete for a two-parameter tool without annotations.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the enum values exactly as they appear in 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?

The description states a specific operation (AI analysis) on one URL and enumerates the five task categories, which aligns with the task enum. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like webcap_extract or webcap_audit.

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 is given on when to prefer this tool over the many webcap siblings, nor any exclusions. The task list implies use cases but does not provide a decision rule or mention alternatives.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention the paid nature ($0.002) and the single-URL scope, but it does not describe what the tool returns, whether it fetches the URL, any side effects, or prerequisite conditions. For a tool with no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the paid cost and then summarizes the tool's function. It has no fluff and is appropriately brief for a simple one-parameter tool, though it sacrifices some explanatory detail.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide enough detail for the agent to judge whether this is the right tool and what it will receive. It gives high-level categories but doesn't explain what 'SEO basics' or 'link health' mean as outputs, nor does it reference any pricing or sibling-tool comparisons beyond the cost. Given the large sibling set, this is incomplete.

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. The description confirms that the tool handles 'one URL', which aligns with the single url parameter, but it adds no additional semantics such as URL format, expected behavior on invalid URLs, or how the parameter relates to the output categories.

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 scope: SEO basics, link health, and Open Graph health for a single URL. This distinguishes it from more narrowly scoped siblings like webcap_og or webcap_health, though it doesn't name them explicitly. The purpose is specific enough that an agent can tell what it does.

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 the tool is for when you need all three audit aspects in one call, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like webcap_og or webcap_health. No exclusions or alternative-triggering conditions are mentioned, leaving the decision somewhat inferred.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates the per-call cost ($0.001), the settlement mechanism ('gasless USDC over x402'), the persistent public nature of the artifact, and the inclusion of OG metadata. It omits auth/rate-limit/error details, but the major side effects of a paid public capture are disclosed.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The cost signal is front-loaded, then the action, output formats, artifact behavior, and settlement detail each earn their 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 flat 3-parameter tool with fully documented schema, the description is appropriately complete: it explains inputs, outputs, cost, and persistence. There is no output schema, but the return value is summarized as a public artifact URL plus OG metadata. Exact response field names are not given, but the high-level contract is clear enough for selection and invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description maps 'PNG/JPEG/PDF' to the format enum and implicitly references the url parameter, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema for fullPage. The schema already documents the parameters sufficiently.

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 action ('screenshot a URL'), the supported output formats ('PNG/JPEG/PDF'), and the key outputs ('persistent public artifact URL' and 'free OG metadata'). The 'PAID' marker and persistence detail help distinguish it from sibling tools like webcap_preview, webcap_quick_thumbnail, and webcap_og.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of when-not-to-use conditions. The 'PAID' prefix implies a paid route and trial-claim siblings exist, but the description never tells the agent when to prefer this capture tool over preview, thumbnail, or OG-metadata tools.

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 no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the cost, the batch limit (up to 50 URLs per payment), and the output format (JSON with specified fields). It does not mention side effects, permissions, errors, or pagination, but for a read-only extraction tool these are less critical. It provides moderate transparency but could be more explicit about whether it is read-only and any rate limits.

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 leads with the paid aspect and batch limit, then lists the output fields. There is zero waste; every phrase earns its place. It is concise and well-structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the extracted fields (title, headings, paragraphs, links, images, markdown). It covers all parameters, the batch limit, and the cost. It does not mention error handling, required URL formats, or any authentication, but for a straightforward extraction tool it is reasonably 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it specifies that one payment covers a batch of up to 50 URLs (clarifying the urls parameter) and that the schema is a natural-language description (matching the schema's own description but reinforcing it). This adds value beyond the structured 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?

The description clearly states the tool extracts structured content (title, headings, paragraphs, links, images, markdown) from web pages as JSON, with an optional schema constraint. It uses a specific verb (extract) and resource (web content). It does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling tools, but the action and output are unambiguous.

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 usage context: it is a paid tool ($0.01 per batch up to 50 URLs) and optionally accepts a natural-language schema. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like webcap_capture or webcap_analyze, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The cost and batch info hint at usage, but explicit routing is absent.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the rate limit (60/hr) and that no account is needed, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether feedback is stored, if there is a success/failure response, or if the submission is persistent). For a simple feedback tool this is adequate but not fully 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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences—and front-loads the core function ('Free feedback into webcap') followed by the key parameters. It wastes no words and every sentence earns its place by covering the essential usage and 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?

The tool is simple (3 params, 1 required), schema fully documents each parameter, and no output schema is expected for a feedback submission. The description covers the main aspects: what it does, parameters, rate limit, and an alternative feedback path. It omits details like response format, but that is minor for a fire-and-forget feedback 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by restating the message length range and optionality of category/endpoint, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The rate-limit info is unrelated to parameter meaning.

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 ('Free feedback into webcap') and resource (the webcap feedback channel), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on feedback submission rather than capture, analysis, or trial claims. It also lists the exact parameters (message, category, endpoint) which clarifies its 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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: no account required and rate-limited per client (60/hr), and it mentions an alternative human-facing GET /feedback endpoint. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for comparison, but the purpose is so distinct from the other webcap tools that usage guidance is effectively implied.

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 no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Free liveness + chain info.' It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, what authentication is needed, or what the response format looks like. The word 'free' hints at cost, not behavior.

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 brief and free of filler, front-loading the core value. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, which makes it slightly under-specified, but it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description fails to clarify what 'chain info' means or what the response contains. Even a simple health tool needs to convey that it is a read-only status check and what data it returns; this description is too sparse to be 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema is complete. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional parameter guidance is needed since there are none.

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 'Free liveness + chain info' identifies a health-related resource and hints at the return value, but it lacks a specific verb and leaves the term 'chain' ambiguous. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like webcap_capture or webcap_service, making it more than a tautology but still vague.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer that 'webcap_health' is a health check endpoint.

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 no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid cost ($0.002), the crawl scope (1-hop same-host), and the maxUrls limits (up to 50, default 20). However, it does not state return format, error behavior, or whether the crawl is synchronous, which would help an agent set expectations.

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?

A single, dense sentence front-loads the most important signal (cost) and packs crawl scope and parameter limits efficiently. There is zero filler; every clause carries operational 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys cost, scope, and limits but omits return value shape and failure semantics. For a tool with only two simple parameters and a narrow crawl scope, this is mostly adequate, but the lack of any statement about what the tool returns leaves a moderate 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% and both parameters (url, maxUrls) are described in the schema. The description adds the default value (20) and the range semantics (1-50), which slightly augments the schema's '1-50 (default 20)' but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description names a specific verb (map/crawl) and resource (site URL list from sitemap/robots plus a 1-hop same-host crawl). It clearly states what the tool produces and distinguishes itself from siblings like capture, analyze, and preview by focusing on URL discovery. However, the term 'map_lite' is not fully unpacked, so some differentiation relies on the tool name.

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 context (URL discovery from sitemap/robots) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance. It does not name siblings or state conditions that would select webcap_map_lite over webcap_capture or webcap_extract. The cost prefix hints it is a paid entry point, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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 no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the output includes title, description, image, and icon, and implies a read-only fetch. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, what happens when a URL lacks Open Graph tags, or whether the operation is purely non-mutating.

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 short, front-loaded, and easy to scan. The only slight issue is redundancy: 'Free' and 'No payment' convey the same 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the expected output fields but omits response format, failure modes, and usage context relative to sibling tools. This is adequate for a simple fetch but leaves meaningful 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?

The input schema already documents the single 'url' parameter with 100% coverage. The description mentions the URL as the object of the operation but adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the tool's function: retrieving Open Graph metadata (title, description, image, icon) for a URL. It is specific about the resource and the data returned, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get' and does not differentiate from similarly named siblings.

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 is given about when to choose webcap_og over alternatives such as webcap_preview, webcap_extract, or webcap_quick_thumbnail. The phrases 'Free' and 'No payment' hint at a cost distinction but do not provide actionable selection criteria.

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 no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: free (cost), bounded (scope), rate-limited per IP (constraint), and expected output contents. This goes beyond the schema and is valuable for agent decision-making.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by use case and rate limit. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and output contents. It could be more specific about output format or what 'bounded' means, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'url' is fully described in the schema with 'Absolute http(s) URL to fetch' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('preview') with a bounded scope and lists concrete content elements (title, headings, links, word count, markdown slice). Explicitly contrasts with paying for the full extract, distinguishing it from sibling tools like webcap_extract.

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 condition: 'Use to peek before paying for the full extract.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over a full-extract alternative. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or state when not to use it, so it's clear but lacks an explicit exclusion.

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 no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most decision-critical traits: cost (free), authentication requirement (no wallet), output type (JPEG thumbnail), and rate limit (3/day per IP). It omits failure behavior when the limit is exceeded and exact return format, but the disclosed constraints are genuinely useful and non-obvious.

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, zero filler. The core offering and rate limit are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the wallet distinction that separates this tool from the full-trial siblings.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what is produced (JPEG thumbnail), the access terms (free, no wallet, 3/day per IP). Minor gaps remain — how the thumbnail is returned (binary vs URL) and behavior once the daily limit is exhausted — but these are small for such a simple 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 100% — the url parameter is already documented as 'Absolute http(s) URL to fetch'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., handling of non-http URLs or size limits), 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?

The description clearly conveys what the tool produces (a free JPEG thumbnail without wallet requirement) and the key constraint (3/day per IP). It lacks an explicit action verb and doesn't name specific sibling tools it differs from, but the outcome — a quick, no-wallet thumbnail — is unambiguous and the contrast with 'full trials' gives some differentiation.

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 statement that full trials need a wallet signature implies this tool is for the no-wallet, limited case, giving some context for when to choose it. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states conditions like 'use this when you need a quick preview' versus the trial_claim_* or webcap_capture siblings; the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a free, non-mutating catalog and specifies exactly what information it returns, making the tool's behavior predictable without requiring hidden side-effect knowledge.

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 states what the tool provides, and the second gives the primary usage directive. Every word adds value and the key 'call this first' guidance is immediately actionable.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the exact content an agent will receive, the cost profile, and the recommended invocation order, leaving no critical gap for correct use.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden on the description. The input schema already fully covers the empty parameter set, and the description accurately frames the tool as a no-input catalog.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as a free machine catalog with a specific list of contents: exact prices, network, USDC asset, payTo, facilitator, and how-to-pay flow. The phrase 'Call this first' positions it distinctly from the action-oriented sibling 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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call this tool first in order to learn what webcap can do and what it costs. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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 no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It reveals the free one-per-wallet constraint and 'no payment', but omits critical claim mechanics: it requires a signed message, a repeat claim returns 409, and the output format is unknown. The deterministic nature is mentioned, but the description fails to convey the claim endpoint behavior and side effects.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the 'FREE' aspect. However, it is under-specified and lacks a structured explanation of the tool's purpose or usage. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential context.

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?

This is a complex tool requiring a signed claim and involves payment semantics, yet the description provides no overview of the claim process, expected output, or relationship to paid analysis. The signature schema helps, but the overall description is incomplete for an agent to know how to successfully invoke it and handle edge cases like repeat claims.

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 every parameter (url, task, payer, signature) is documented. The signature description is particularly detailed, explaining the exact EIP-191 message and the 409 response on repeat. The tool description adds no parameter-level value, but the schema already carries the burden, warranting the baseline score.

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 the tool performs 'one real deterministic visual analysis' but does not specify the exact verb (e.g., analyze) or the resource/task types (classification, accessibility, etc.). It implies analysis but is vague about scope, and does not clearly distinguish itself from the sibling webcap_analyze beyond the free aspect.

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 hints at a free/paid distinction ('FREE (one per wallet)' vs 'Model-backed analysis stays paid') but never explicitly names the paid alternative or when to use it. It also does not mention how this trial claim differs from trial claims for audit, capture, extract, or map_lite. Usage guidance is implied, not stated.

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 no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: free, one per wallet, no payment, and prerequisite to purchase. However, it does not state what claiming actually returns, whether it consumes an entitlement, or other side effects beyond the one-time limit.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The key facts—free, one per wallet, no payment—are front-loaded, and the purchase prerequisite is stated 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?

The definition is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool given the rich schema and clear prerequisite, but there is no output schema and no description of the success response or deliverable format. An agent is left inferring what the claimed audit actually returns.

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%, and each parameter, especially the signature parameter, is already well documented with the exact message format and repeat-claim 409 behavior. The main description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a free one-per-wallet claim for a real SEO + link/OG audit, with the verb 'Claim' and a specific resource. It also explicitly differentiates from the paid sibling webcap_audit by saying 'Claim it before buying webcap_audit.'

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 a clear usage context: claim the free trial before purchasing webcap_audit, and notes the one-per-wallet limit. It does not enumerate exclusions such as what to do after already claiming, but the prerequisite relationship is explicit.

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 no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behavioral traits: the operation is free, limited to one per wallet, and returns a PNG screenshot with a public artifact URL. However, it does not mention that the claim consumes the wallet's trial entitlement, requires a valid signature, or what happens on repeated claims—though the signature parameter schema partially covers the repeat-claim 409 behavior.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded. The first sentence conveys the free offer, the quota, the output format, and the artifact URL. The second sentence gives the usage sequence relative to the paid sibling. Every word 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?

Given the 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description provides the essential return value (full PNG screenshot and public artifact URL), the quota constraint (one per wallet), and the payment status (free). It does not enumerate all failure modes, but the schema's signature description already covers repeat-claim behavior. This is sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents url, payer, and signature. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for complete 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 identifies the deliverable: a real full PNG screenshot plus a public artifact URL, with no payment. It distinguishes itself from the paid sibling webcap_capture by framing this as the free trial claim. It does not explicitly state the verb 'capture', but the tool name and screenshot output make the action 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?

It gives explicit usage context: this is the free one-per-wallet trial and should be claimed before buying webcap_capture. It also implies that the paid sibling is the alternative for repeat or paid capture needs. It does not address other trial_claim siblings, but the core when-to-use guidance is present.

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?

The description discloses commercial behavior: it is free, limited to one per wallet, and requires no payment. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose that this is a state-changing claim, what a repeat claim returns, or what a successful response contains. The 409/paidNext behavior appears only in the schema, not in the tool description.

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 short, front-loaded with 'FREE' and 'one per wallet,' and contains no redundant filler. It earns its two sentences, though the wording is sales-oriented rather than purely technical. Structurally it is easy to scan and parse.

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 claim tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits important contextual details: what happens after a successful claim, how the claimed trial is used with webcap_extract, and how this differs from trial_claim_analyze or trial_claim_capture. The schema covers signature mechanics, but the description alone is only minimally sufficient.

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 url, payer, and signature are already fully documented. The description adds only 'single-URL' and 'wallet' context and does not explain the signature requirements, but the schema already covers that detail. This is the appropriate baseline for high 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 identifies a specific action: claiming a free, one-per-wallet single-URL structured extraction before purchasing webcap_extract. It clearly differentiates from the paid webcap_extract tool by marking itself as the free trial claim step. It is somewhat promotional but still names the resource and verb.

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?

'Claim it before buying webcap_extract' gives an explicit ordering rule, and 'one per wallet' communicates a usage limit. The description implies this is the entry-point trial for the paid extraction tool. It does not mention the other trial_claim_* siblings, so routing among those is left to the tool names.

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 no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal key constraints — free, limited to one per wallet, capped at 10 URLs, no payment required — and the signature parameter's schema text adds the 409-on-repeat behavior. However, the main description omits what a successful claim produces or how the result is consumed, leaving the success-path behavior undisclosed.

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 with zero waste, and 'FREE' is front-loaded. However, the promotional capitalization and terse structure read more like marketing copy ('one real site-map run') than a functional tool definition, which slightly undermines clarity despite the brevity.

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?

This is an authentication-heavy claim tool (payer address + signature) with no output schema and no description of what a call returns or how the successful claim is consumed by webcap_map_lite. An agent cannot tell what to do with the result, which is a meaningful gap given the absence of any 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is well documented in the schema (url format, payer address format, and a detailed signature spec including the exact personal_sign string and 409 behavior). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 applies and the description adds no additional parameter meaning.

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 action — claiming a free trial of a site-map run, capped at 10 URLs — and the 'FREE (one per wallet)' framing distinguishes it from the paid sibling tools like webcap_map_lite and the other webcap_trial_claim_* variants. It is clear enough to tell apart from siblings, though the phrasing is terse and ad-like rather than a crisp verb+resource statement.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions that a successful claim should be followed by using webcap_map_lite, nor states when NOT to use it (e.g., after a wallet has already claimed). 'One per wallet' implies an entitlement constraint but leaves the routing decision to the agent.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only status/menu behavior ('already claimed', 'can still claim') and adds useful x402 payment context, but it never explicitly states that this tool does not mutate claims or whether authentication or rate limits apply. It is reasonably transparent about output content but not about side effects or access requirements.

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 one dense sentence with a front-loaded label and colon, and almost every clause adds information: claimed endpoints, claimable endpoints, recipe, paid catalog, and x402 payment. Minor redundancy like 'priced paid catalog' and unexplained jargon ('x402') keep it from being a perfect 5.

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 low parameter complexity, full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives enough output categories (claimed, claimable, recipe, paid catalog, payment method) for an agent to understand what the tool returns. It does not specify error behavior or explicitly confirm read-only semantics, but for a status-oriented tool with one required parameter, the definition is largely 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%, so the single payer parameter is already fully documented. The description refers to 'per-wallet' and 'wallet' but does not add format, constraints, or additional meaning beyond what the input schema provides. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema already carries the parameter documentation 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 description identifies a specific resource (per-wallet trial status) and enumerates the information returned: claimed endpoints, claimable endpoints, the claim recipe, and the paid catalog with x402 payment guidance. It does not use an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', but it is clearly distinguishable from the sibling webcap_trial_claim_* tools by describing status rather than claim execution.

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 checking trial eligibility and payment options ('which it can still claim', 'how to pay once the free calls are used'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool. The workflow context is inferable, but an agent is not given direct routing guidance versus the claim/analyze 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add useful behavioral context: it discloses a $0.005 cost and specifies scroll-capture behavior. However, it omits side effects, how the artifact is returned/stored, rate limits, and failure characteristics, leaving important behavior underspecified.

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 front-loads the critical paid constraint, then states the action and output format with no filler. Every word adds value and the structure is appropriately compact.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain what the caller can expect, but it only says 'video artifact' without clarifying whether the result is a URL, file path, binary, or stored object. The large sibling set and absence of usage routing further reduce the agent's ability to understand the full context.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the format enum, durationMs default, and max value. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('scroll-capture a page') and the output ('MP4/WebM video artifact'), giving a specific verb, resource, and result format. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the video-specific wording distinguishes it from the likely capture, preview, and thumbnail tools in the sibling list.

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 the many webcap_* siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The only operational hint is 'PAID', but no selection criteria or alternative routing is provided.

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