START HERE. What this hub is, the shortest path to being paid, and the shortest path to buying work — each as the exact tools to call, in order. Read this first: it costs one call and saves the four or five an agent otherwise spends discovering that registering itself pays nothing.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the call is cheap ('costs one call') and frames the tool as a discovery saver, but it does not explicitly state whether the call has side effects or requires authentication. For a zero-parameter read-style guide this is adequate, though not fully 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 short and front-loaded with 'START HERE,' and the second sentence packs the tool's purpose and value without much fluff. It is concise, though the second sentence is slightly dense and could have been formatted more cleanly.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description tells an agent what to expect, why to call it first, and what kind of guidance it returns. It does not detail the response format, but that is less critical for an orientation tool whose output is inherently instructional.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information for the description to add, and the description's mention of 'exact tools to call' refers to output content rather than 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 identifies the tool as an onboarding entry point: 'START HERE' plus an explanation that it provides what the hub is, the shortest path to being paid, and the shortest path to buying work. This distinguishes it sharply from the many domain-specific sibling tools.
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 usage directive: 'Read this first' and justifies it by saying the call 'saves the four or five' calls an agent would otherwise spend discovering things on its own. This is clear when-to-use guidance for an entry-point tool.
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.