Intelligence MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain how protocols are selected for comparison (all available? default subset?), what the comparison criteria are, or what the return format looks like. The phrase 'compare' implies a read operation but lacks specifics on data sources or side effects.

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 single-sentence description is efficiently structured without redundancy, though its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than effective information density.

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, no annotations, and zero input parameters, the description must explain the comparison logic, selection criteria, and return value structure. It provides none of these, leaving the agent uncertain about what data is returned and when this tool is appropriate.

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 contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. No parameter guidance is required or provided.

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 core action ('Compare') and resource ('agent payment protocols'), but 'across key dimensions' is vague and fails to specify what aspects are compared or how this differs from retrieving individual protocol details via get_protocol_info.

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 guidance provided on when to prefer this tool over get_protocol_info (for single protocol details) or scan_opportunities (for discovery). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get details' implies a read operation, the description fails to specify safety characteristics, caching behavior, rate limits, or what constitutes 'details' in the response.

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 extremely brief (8 words) and front-loaded with the action verb. While efficient and free of redundancy, the brevity contributes to under-specification given the complete lack of schema descriptions and annotations.

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 zero schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and the existence of sibling tools requiring differentiation, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the protocol enum values, expected return structure, or authentication requirements.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It provides domain context by identifying the parameter as an 'agent payment protocol,' but does not explain the five enum values (ap2, acp, x402, mpp, ucp) or offer selection guidance for the 'protocol' parameter.

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 action ('Get details') and resource ('agent payment protocol'), providing specific verb and resource context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_protocols' or explain when to retrieve single vs. comparative information.

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 guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description omits whether this is appropriate for initial protocol discovery, validation, or comparison scenarios, and does not reference sibling tools.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the financial cost and accepted payment token (MPP/Tempo USDC). However, it omits other behavioral details like return format, rate limits, or error states when funds are insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise with two efficiently structured sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by critical cost/payment information. Every word earns its place with no 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 the financial cost, lack of output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. While it covers pricing, it fails to explain what constitutes an 'opportunity', what the parameters filter, or what the tool returns, leaving dangerous gaps for a paid operation.

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 0% description coverage for both 'days' and 'min_score' parameters. The description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters control, what units they use, or their semantic meaning, focusing only on payment mechanisms instead.

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?

Clearly states the tool scans the 'agent payments ecosystem' for 'actionable opportunities', providing specific domain context and verb. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like compare_protocols or get_protocol_info in the text itself.

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?

Provides critical cost information ($0.01 USDC) which informs usage economics, but offers no guidance on when to select this tool versus compare_protocols or get_protocol_info, nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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