bypass_cf_clearance_detector

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

Annotations are none, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it costs 0.015 USDC on Base L2, which is a behavioral cost detail not captured elsewhere. It also implies the tool analyzes externally and returns hints, but does not describe network usage, latency, or whether it modifies anything. The cost detail is valuable.

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 concise, front-loading the main action and then noting the cost. The sentence is compact with no waste, though the cost in parentheses is a bit of an afterthought.

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 a single important parameter with vague schema description, and no output schema. The description is brief but sufficient for an agent to understand the basic function, yet it lacks details on required input format (e.g., domain vs URL) and the shape of 'actionable hints'. Given the complexity of the domain (bot detection), the description is a bit thin.

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 describes the payload parameter as 'Input parameters or JSON string payload for the tool execution', which is generic, and paymentSignature is for settlement. The description does not specify what payload should contain (e.g., domain names, URLs), so it adds minimal value beyond the schema's generic wording. With 100% coverage, baseline is 3.

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 inspects target domains for Cloudflare, Akamai, and Datadome challenge screens, and it mentions returning actionable bypass and session hints. This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like verify_cors_headers or resilient_http_probe, though it could be more explicit about the 'detector' part.

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 domains protected by these anti-bot systems, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also omits when not to use it or alternative tools for similar tasks, leaving the agent to infer from the mention of these specific providers.

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