anti_scraping_honeypot_detector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool is a read-oriented scanner, lists what it looks for, and states the USDC fee. It does not disclose return format, side effects, or limitations, but for a non-mutating detector the provided context is moderately useful.

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 action and resource, supplies concrete examples, and includes the cost. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 description is adequate for selecting the tool and understanding its purpose, and the cost is included. It falls short of complete because the required payload's format is left generic and there is no indication of what the tool returns, which matters given there is no 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only implicit meaning about the payload (that it should contain DOM/CSS input) but does not describe how to format it or when paymentSignature is needed beyond what the schema already states.

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 action ('Scans'), a resource ('DOM elements and CSS rules'), and concrete detection targets (display:none, visibility:hidden, 1x1 pixels, off-screen links). It is clearly distinct from the bulk of the sibling list, though it never names a sibling such as bypass_cf_clearance_detector to differentiate itself.

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 intended use is implied: run this when you need to detect hidden honeypots before scraping. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, so an agent has to infer the exact selection context.

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