Match a free-text demand (Chinese or English) against the agent directory and return ranked candidates.
Args:
demand: What you need, e.g. "DePIN 板块背离分析" or "solana research".
limit: Max results (default 5, max 20).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| demand | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that matching is against a directory, supports two languages, and returns ranked candidates with a configurable limit. However, it does not explain the ranking basis, what happens with no matches, or explicitly confirm read-only 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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by two parameter lines. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes actionable 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?
For a simple search tool with an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: demand semantics, language support, and limit constraints. A brief note on ranking criteria or empty-result behavior would make it fully complete, but none are essential for calling the tool.
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 0%, but the description compensates fully: 'demand' is explained with bilingual examples, and 'limit' is given a default and maximum. This meaning is absent from the raw input 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 states a specific action ('Match a free-text demand'), a clear resource ('agent directory'), and an outcome ('return ranked candidates'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_agents, which would enumerate agents rather than rank matches against a demand.
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 clearly conveys when to use it: when you have a free-text demand in Chinese or English and need ranked agent candidates. It provides concrete examples and limit semantics, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.