PubFi MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: no upstream calls, no usage creation, establishing read-only, non-destructive nature. Additional details like rate limits or auth are absent but acceptable for a search tool.

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?

Single sentence conveying action, scope, and constraints. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and standard parameters, the description is adequate for a discovery tool. It explains purpose and boundaries. Minor gap: does not mention return format or pagination, but not critical for this complexity.

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% with descriptive param texts (e.g., 'Natural-language crypto data need or capability search query.'). These add meaning beyond parameter names. The tool description does not repeat param info but schema already serves well.

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 it searches PubFi's capability catalog for routeable crypto data needs, specifying that it does not call upstream providers or create usage. This distinguishes it from route execution tools among siblings.

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 implies use for exploration before routing by stating it avoids calling providers or creating usage. While not explicit, the context of sibling route tools reinforces when to use this search tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'authenticated PubFi API-key attribution' and 'server-side providers' but does not reveal key behavioral traits such as whether execution has side effects, whether it is idempotent (despite an idempotency key parameter), or what the error or response behavior is. The description is insufficient for an execution tool.

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 a single sentence that captures the essential purpose, but it is somewhat jargon-heavy ('route-planning evidence', 'PubFi API-key attribution'). It is reasonably concise without being wasteful, though it could be slightly clearer. It earns a 4 for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, required route_plan and arguments, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error conditions, prerequisites (beyond route_plan), or authentication requirements in detail. For an execution tool, this lacks the completeness needed for an agent to use it 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds 'such as wallet address and network' for the 'arguments' parameter, but this is generic and does not meaningfully extend the schema's own description. Given the high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not add significant value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Execute' on a well-defined resource ('selected PubFi capability route'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pubfi.route.plan (which plans) and pubfi.route.explain (which explains). The phrasing is unambiguous and immediately conveys the tool's primary function.

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 implies that the tool is used after route planning ('using route-planning evidence returned by pubfi.route.plan'), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, and there is no exclusion criteria. The usage context is implied but not clearly stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool does not execute providers, indicating a read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as return format, error handling, or permission requirements. The description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Explain' and includes key details. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for outputs), but there is no unnecessary content.

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?

Given the complexity of 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview but lacks details on how parameters interact, what the output structure looks like (beyond 'reason codes and filters'), and specific scenarios. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it provides context for the tool's purpose but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or default behavior. The schema itself already explains each parameter adequately.

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 'Explain the routing decision PubFi would make for an intent, including reason codes and filters, without executing providers.' This provides a specific verb ('explain'), resource ('PubFi routing decision'), and key differentiators (reason codes, filters, non-execution). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like pubfi.route.execute.

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 implies a dry-run usage by saying 'without executing providers,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pubfi.route.plan or pubfi.route.execute. There is no mention of preconditions, when not to use, or explicit comparisons.

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

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is a dry-run, does not call upstream providers, and does not create usage. This effectively communicates the behavioral traits. Could mention prerequisites or return format, but current description is solid.

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?

Single sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with action and key constraints. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or waste.

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?

Tool has 6 parameters (none required) and nested objects, but no output schema. Description does not mention return value structure, error behavior, or prerequisites. While clear on purpose, it lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the result or handle edge cases. Adequate but with gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. It summarizes the overall purpose but does not enrich individual parameter semantics. 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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a dry-run route plan from intent and capability constraints, with the key behavior of not calling upstream providers or creating usage. This distinguishes it from siblings like pubfi.route.execute (which likely executes) and pubfi.capabilities.search (which searches capabilities).

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?

Description implies when to use: for planning without side effects. It mentions 'without calling upstream providers or creating usage', which guides agents to choose this when they want a dry-run. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of execute for testing', but the context of siblings and the clear dry-run behavior provides sufficient guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It labels the tool as 'read-only', which is helpful, but it does not mention any potential errors, rate limits, or details about the response. For a simple read-only tool, the description is insufficient beyond the read-only claim.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action in the first sentence and providing context in the second. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description still lacks details on the return format or structure of the schema details. While it gives usage context, an agent might need to infer the output, making it somewhat incomplete for a complete picture.

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 description coverage is 100%—the single parameter 'tool' already has a clear description in the schema: 'PubFi MCP tool name to inspect.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns input and output schema details for a named tool, specifically mentioning pubfi.route.execute. This is a concrete verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from siblings which perform other actions like search, execute, explain, or plan.

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 explicitly says this read-only helper is intended for agent setup and validation before planning or execution, giving clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it narrowly misses a 5.

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