qm_data_readability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: exact price ($0.01 USDC on Base via x402), the two-phase handshake, an authoritative source caveat, wallet-safety guarantees (never pays, never touches private keys, never holds funds), and resale permission. Cost, auth, and safety are all disclosed.

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 with the core purpose before payment mechanics, and every sentence is functional. There is minor redundancy (the 'never pays/never holds funds/never touches private keys' guarantee recurs in both description and schema), but structure is otherwise tight.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states the data is returned in the tool result, and the payment lifecycle is fully covered end to end. For a payment-gated tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that omitting 'payment' yields live payment requirements and that 'payment' is a base64 x402 v1 payload signed externally. This enriches the semantics of both parameters.

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 states a specific verb+resource: extracting clean article text from a webpage with navigation/ads/chrome stripped, plus the downstream intent (processing/summarization). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like qm_data_summarize or qm_data_wiki, so the agent must infer the boundary, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

The two-phase usage is spelled out precisely: call without 'payment' to get live requirements, then re-call with the base64 payload. It gives clear operational context but offers no guidance on when to choose this over sibling extraction/summarization tools.

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