parse_rss_feed

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a cost ($0.001 USDC) via x402, but it omits all other behavioral aspects: what the tool actually does with an RSS feed, what inputs it expects, what output format it returns, and whether it makes network requests or has side effects.

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?

The description is extremely concise, front-loaded with the core action, and includes pricing in a tidy second clause. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description alone must provide enough context for correct invocation. It is severely under-specified: no mention of input requirements, return values, error conditions, or operational behavior, making it inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema contains a single generic 'params' object with the description 'Tool parameters as JSON object,' providing no real meaning about what parameters are needed. The tool description adds no parameter information at all, leaving the agent without clues to populate the params object correctly.

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 phrase 'parse rss feed' is essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool name, adding only a generic 'Web & SEO tool' label. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like read_url or web_scrape, and it fails to explain what parsing entails.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'Web & SEO tool,' which is too broad to help an agent decide.

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