FREE. Today's top-3 CVE priorities from the AIS daily ranking (no scores). Ranked by real exploitation — KEV + EPSS + KEV-recency — not CVSS alone. Use top_cves_today for the full scored list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation (a 'teaser' that returns information), and does not imply any side effects. While it does not explicitly state 'read-only', the nature of the tool and its purpose make it clear.
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 (two sentences) and directly states the purpose, ranking criteria, and alternative tool. No redundant information or fluff.
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 lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently indicates the return content (top-3 CVEs, no scores) and points to a sibling tool for details. It is complete for the tool's limited scope, though a more explicit mention of the return format would raise it to 5.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is fully covered (empty properties). There is nothing for the description to add; no ambiguity exists regarding input semantics.
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 clearly states the tool's function: it returns today's top-3 CVE priorities based on a specific ranking (KEV + EPSS + KEV-recency) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'top_cves_today' which provides the full scored list.
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?
It explicitly tells when not to use this tool ('Use top_cves_today for the full scored list') and explains the ranking rationale, guiding the agent to select the appropriate tool based on whether scores are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: a free teaser, a full ranked list, a single-CVE verdict, and a recent-KEV catalog. No two tools could be confused for one another.
Names follow an informal noun-phrase style but mix adjective+noun, noun+noun, acronym+adjective, and adjective+noun+adverb patterns. They remain readable and memorable, though not rigorously consistent.
Four tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a daily CVE-priority API. Each tool has a distinct place and none feel redundant or missing for the stated purpose.
The surface covers teaser access, the full daily list, per-CVE verdicts, and recent KEV additions. Minor gaps like historical lookups or date-range queries exist but are outside the explicitly stated daily scope.