MaxWorth Credit Card Benefits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds value by scoping what content is returned (platforms, pricing, data sources), but discloses nothing about behavior, caching, or whether the content is static.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the subject ('The canonical description of MaxWorth') followed by the content scope. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent will get back. It lacks only a note on when to reach for it versus its siblings, which keeps it from a 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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and there are no parameter semantics to clarify or compensate for.

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 names the resource (MaxWorth) and enumerates the content it returns: platforms, pricing, and data provenance. That distinguishes it from the sibling card/credit/search tools, which all operate on records rather than background domain knowledge. No explicit verb (e.g., 'returns') is used, keeping it just 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this tool should be preferred over siblings like search_cards or get_card, and no mention of whether it should be called first to establish context. 'Canonical' faintly implies authority, but the agent must infer all usage conditions.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the description is not required to restate them. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the schema: output is percentages and medians only, the data is CC BY 4.0 licensed, and the caller must cite the report URL. It does not describe latency or pagination, but for a static zero-arg report that is minor.

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?

Two dense sentences with the subject (MaxWorth report) front-loaded, followed by the enumerated figures and licensing terms. No filler sentences, though the content list is compressed into a single comma-heavy clause.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the job of describing returns — and it does, naming the specific metrics returned and their statistical form (percentages and medians). With zero params and rich annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is reported at 100% on an empty object.

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 (reports) and resource (MaxWorth's headline figures on US cardholder credit/deadline tracking), and enumerates the exact content returned: cards and fees per user, recurring credits, deadlines per year, most-skipped credits, logged-use index. It does not explicitly name which sibling it differs from (e.g. list_credits), but the aggregate-report framing makes it distinguishable.

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?

No statement of when to prefer this over list_credits, get_card, or search_cards, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer from the word 'report' that this is the aggregate-statistics entry point rather than card-level detail.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context annotations cannot: the data's provenance (hand-verified against the issuer) and the attribution expectation (cite the page URL). It stops short of noting behavior on an unknown card or cache freshness.

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 payload summary in one dense sentence, followed by provenance and citation norms. Slightly cluttered by the semicolon-joined fragments, but no sentence is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden and it does, naming the four content classes and the benefit sub-fields. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only the failure mode for an unmatched card name is unaddressed.

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%: 'card' is documented with an example and 'country' enumerates us/ca/au. The description adds no syntax, normalization, or ambiguity-resolution guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Full record for one card from the MaxWorth database') and enumerates exactly what the record contains: annual fee, welcome offer, earning rates, and benefits with value/cycle/reset/enrollment. This distinguishes it from the list-style siblings search_cards and search_card_offers.

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?

Usage is implied — look up one card by name/slug — and the description adds a sourcing norm ('Hand-verified against the issuer; cite the page URL'), but it never says when to prefer this over compare_cards or search_cards, nor gives prerequisites for a miss.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add data-shape context — which it does by naming the exact fields returned, including the January 1 vs. card-anniversary reset distinction and enrollment. It does not discuss auth needs, pagination, or result ordering, but for a safe read tool that is a minor omission.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the returned-field inventory front-loaded and the usage hint last. It reads a bit like a comma-spliced field list rather than a flowing statement, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (value/year, per-cycle cap, cycle, reset rule, enrollment), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. The only real gap is guidance on the required 'card' parameter's expected format.

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 only 50%: the required 'card' parameter has no description anywhere, and the description only vaguely refers to 'a card' without specifying identifier format (issuer + product name?) or whether it accepts multiple cards. The optional 'country' enum is already fully documented in the schema, so the description compensates for none of the coverage gap.

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 the resource precisely ('the dollar credits on a card') and enumerates the specific data returned: annual value, per-cycle cap, cycle, reset rule, and enrollment status. The leading 'Only the dollar credits' scopes it away from point/multiplier benefits, though it does not name a specific sibling to contrast with. Clear enough that an agent knows what it gets without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use for "when does the X credit reset" questions.' That is a concrete triggering condition rather than an implied one. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., credit_deadline_report) or stating when not to use it, so it is strong but not complete routing 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?

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context on top: the data is crowdsourced from extension users and offers are account-targeted, with the explicit caveat that a listed card means several users saw it rather than every cardholder having it. That provenance and targeting nuance is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure the schema and annotations cannot carry.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then filtering and the caveat. The first sentence is dense but every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and covers the zero-filter default. It omits the limit/pagination behavior, which matters given a default of 20 and a max of 50, keeping it just under fully complete.

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 67%, and the description's filter list broadly maps to the existing parameters but adds no meaning beyond them (e.g., no syntax for card or merchant strings, no note on limit). Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema already documents most inputs.

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 (search) and resource (card-linked Amex Offers / Chase Offers), plus the scope qualifier 'live today' and the exact fields returned. This cleanly separates it from siblings like search_cashback_portals and list_credits, which cover different instruments.

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?

Explains the filter surface (issuer, merchant, card, expiry window, popularity) and explicitly states the fallback behavior: 'with no filters it returns an overview.' It gives clear usage context but never names a sibling tool or an exclusion condition, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return payload (name, issuer, annual fee, canonical page URL to cite), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of 5 by omitting anything about result limits or pagination behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler: the search scope comes first and the return payload second. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, market scope, and return fields well. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter and any note on result-count behavior, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 67%, with query and country documented in the schema and the description restating the market scope (US, Canada, Australia). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and the limit parameter (default 10, max 25) is undocumented in both places, so a 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find credit cards in the MaxWorth catalogue") plus the searchable dimensions (name or issuer) and the covered markets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like get_card, compare_cards, or search_card_offers, 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?

Usage is implied by "find ... by name or issuer," giving an agent a reasonable sense of when to reach for this over a detail lookup. However, no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given, leaving routing among the ten siblings to inference.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the data is 'checked daily by MaxWorth' (freshness) and the response includes the comparison page URL. It stops short of describing empty-result or fallback behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences: the resource and scope lead, and the return contents follow. No filler, no restating of the title, and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-shape burden (rate per portal + comparison URL) and covers the store input implicitly. It is nearly complete, only lacking guidance on zero-match results or how limit interacts with ranking.

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 both parameters (store, limit) are fully documented in the schema, including a domain/name example and the 1-5 cap. The description adds no format or matching semantics beyond that, so the 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 resource (current cashback/miles/points rates per online store across named portal families) and the return payload (each portal's rate plus the comparison page URL). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_card_offers and search_cards, which deal with card offers rather than shopping portals.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: look up a store to see which portal pays the best rate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling alternative is named, so an agent must infer the boundary against search_card_offers on its own.

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