DYOE Text Extraction ($0.01)

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds non-obvious behavior the schema cannot convey: a $0.01 USDC payment on Base via x402 per call. That payment requirement materially affects invocation. It doesn't describe latency or failure modes, so not a 5.

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 core purpose followed by audience, input, and price. Tight overall; the 'Input: ?url=' fragment is redundant with the schema but costs little.

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-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers purpose, output nature (clean main text, no nav/ads), and the payment prerequisite. Return structure specifics are the only gap, and it's minor for a text-extraction tool.

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 (url), which the schema already documents with an example. The description's 'Input: ?url=' adds nothing beyond the structured field, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Extract clean main text content from any web page (no nav/ads)'. The parenthetical disambiguates the output. It doesn't name a sibling tool to distinguish from (e.g. dyoe_wiki), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'For research & summarizing agents' implies the intended context but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing. Adequate implied usage, no exclusions.

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