audit_web_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait the schema cannot: the tool auto-handles an HTTP 402 microtransaction of 0.080 USDC on Base, i.e., it is a paid operation. It also states the return shape (credibility score 0-100 plus risk signals). It omits failure/payment-failure behavior and rate limits, so it is informative but not complete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by what it returns and then the payment caveat. No filler sentences, though the third sentence could be tightened. Structure is clean and scannable.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the load. It covers purpose, return shape, and payment handling, but leaves the actual content of 'risk signals,' the failure mode when payment fails, and interaction with contract_address unspecified. Adequate but with clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'url' and 'contract_address' are already documented as the URL to audit and an optional EVM address verified alongside it. The description adds nothing parameter-level beyond the schema, 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 names a specific verb (audits/analyzes) and resource (website or smart contract landing page), and specifies the analysis dimensions: security, credibility, and phishing risk. It clearly distinguishes the tool from a generic scrape/search, though it never names a sibling. The purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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 says the tool works 'for any website or smart contract landing page,' which implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., clean_web_scrape or clean_web_search) and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer that this is the risk-assessment path rather than the content-retrieval path.

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