redirect_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the two traits an agent most needs before calling: a metered cost (0.001 USDC per call on Base mainnet) and automatic payment from PAYER_PRIVATE_KEY, which implies a funded-wallet prerequisite. It stops short of covering redirect-depth limits, timeouts, or failure 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action and the hop-by-hop scope front-loaded and billing detail trailing. Every clause carries information.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and the notable cost/auth requirement, which is enough to call it correctly. Depth limits and return shape are the only unaddressed items, and the latter is partly excused by the absence of an 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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already fully documents 'url'. The description adds no format constraints or edge-case notes (max hops, whether the URL must be absolute), so it matches baseline rather than exceeding it.

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 ('Trace a web address') plus the mechanism ('hop by hop, reporting every status and destination'), which distinguishes it in spirit from dns_lookup and site_check. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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: follow redirect chains and report each hop. There is no statement of when to prefer this over dns_lookup, site_check, or page_reader, and no exclusions or preconditions 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.