Page fingerprint / change detection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the tool has a cost ('Costs $0.015 per call, paid in USDC on Base') and that it normalizes away noise such as timestamps and session ids. It does not detail output structure or edge cases, but it covers the most important operational 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 three short sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the usage scenario, then the cost note. 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough context to decide when to call it and what behavior to expect. The parameter meanings are fully covered by the schema, and the description supplies the missing operational context: cost, payment method, and the 'watch a page' use case. A full return-shape description would improve completeness, but it is not essential for selecting and invoking 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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds some context by explaining that the fingerprint ignores noise like timestamps and session ids, which relates to ignore_numbers, but it does not materially extend what the schema already says about url, previous, selector, or ignore_numbers.

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 a specific verb and resource: it produces a stable fingerprint of a page and a change verdict, while ignoring noisy data like timestamps and session ids. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like farm_metadata or farm_links, which clearly serve different extraction 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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to watch a page without storing or diffing its HTML yourself.' This tells an agent when to choose the tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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.