Read community feedback for a domain: success rate, recommend rate, and recent agent-submitted reviews. Useful before choosing a site for a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max reviews (default 10) | |
| domain | Yes | The domain to look up, e.g. stripe.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions read operation ('Read') and the data types returned, but does not state whether changes are made (though implied not), any side effects, rate limits, or access requirements. The 'Read' verb implies idempotence but is not explicit.
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-loaded with the core purpose and key outputs, followed by a usage note. No redundancy or unnecessary words. It earns its space.
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, the description partially compensates by naming returned fields (success rate, etc.). However, it is vague about 'recent agent-submitted reviews' – no time range or pagination info for 50 max reviews. Without annotations, it leaves gaps about idempotence and result structure. Adequate for a simple read tool but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning for parameters beyond what the schema provides. It lists the fields returned (success rate, etc.) but does not clarify how 'limit' affects reviews or what 'recent' means. Schema already explains domain and limit 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 clearly states the tool reads community feedback for a domain and lists specific data returned (success rate, recommend rate, recent reviews). It also mentions utility (useful before choosing a site). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit_check_feedback' or 'submit_feedback' which are write operations, but that distinction is obvious enough.
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 includes a usage hint ('Useful before choosing a site for a task'), giving context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it, such as for submitting feedback instead of reading it.
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.
Tools are generally well-distinguished, but discover_products and search_capabilities could be confused since both search across domains. The difference in query type (task intent vs. capability) is somewhat subtle. Overall, most tools have clear, separate purposes.
All tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., discover_products, get_checks, scan_domain). The naming is predictable and matches the server's domain of evaluating agent-ready properties.
With 11 tools, the server covers scanning, scoring, feedback, and search without being overly broad. Each tool has a distinct role, and the count is appropriate for the focused purpose of assessing agent readiness.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: discover/scan domains, get scores and checks, apply skills, verify with challenges, submit feedback and disputes. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated domain.