feed_reader

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key non-obvious trait: a real monetary cost of 0.005 USDC per call on Base mainnet, auto-paid from PAYER_PRIVATE_KEY. It still omits failure behavior for non-feed URLs and any auth/wallet-missing error mode.

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 compact sentences: purpose front-loaded, payment terms second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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, this covers what it does, what it returns in shape terms, and its billing model. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid feed, payment failure) that an agent would want before calling.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with an example URL. The description adds the useful constraint that the address should be a feed (RSS/Atom/RDF), but no extra format or validation detail beyond that.

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 and resource: reading an RSS/Atom/RDF feed, normalized into dated items with summaries. The feed resource type naturally separates it from page_reader, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the term 'feed' in the parameter description. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over page_reader (e.g. feed URL vs arbitrary HTML page), and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the payment note.

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