DYOE Website Audit ($0.05)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: the operation costs $0.05 USDC on Base per call and is paid via x402, and it returns both a verdict and prioritized fixes. It does not detail response structure or failure modes, but the cost/auth disclosure is valuable context.

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?

Front-loaded purpose with the em-dash clause, followed by return info and pricing in two compact sentences. Slightly redundant with the title, which also states the $0.05 price, and the Input fragment is borderline noise, but overall efficient.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output character (verdict + prioritized fixes), and payment mechanics. An agent has enough to call it and set expectations, though no output schema means return details could be richer.

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 exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url with an example. The description's "Input: ?url=domain" adds negligible meaning beyond the schema (a query-string style that conflicts slightly with the schema's https://stripe.com example). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Score) and resource (any website) with a clear scope: 0-100 for legitimacy, trust, SEO and contactability, framed as company due diligence. It distinguishes itself functionally from siblings like dyoe_verify or dyoe_reputation through the website-scoring angle, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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?

"due diligence on a company in one call" implies the use context, and the tool's nature suggests pre-deal research. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and despite many overlapping siblings (verify, intel, reputation, merchant) none are referenced as alternatives.

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