Intelligence MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by describing the output as a side-by-side comparison matrix and listing the specific axes of comparison (creator, layer, agent delegation, etc.), which goes beyond what annotations alone provide. It could detail the return structure further, but for a 0-parameter tool with a fixed protocol set, this is sufficient.

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 immediately followed by usage guidance and an alternative. Every sentence 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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema) and the solid annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from the sibling. The inclusion of example queries and the explicit alternative makes it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details because none exist; the input schema fully covers this (vacuously). No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get a side-by-side comparison matrix') and precisely identifies the resource (all five agent payment protocols) and the comparison dimensions (creator, layer, agent delegation, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_protocol_info by noting it's for the full landscape rather than single-protocol details.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool, with concrete example queries ('AP2 vs ACP', 'which protocol handles budgets?', etc.), and provides a clear exclusion: use get_protocol_info for deep details on a single protocol. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the output scope but does not disclose error behavior or edge cases. This is adequate but lacks extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 composed of two concise sentences. The first states the purpose with the output fields, and the second gives usage guidelines and a sibling alternative. No filler or 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?

For a simple read-only lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return contents (creator, maturity level, repo URL, layer), usage examples, and when to avoid in favor of compare_protocols. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, with the protocol parameter fully described including enum and examples. The description complements this with usage examples but does not add new technical detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'canonical description of an agent payment protocol', listing the fields returned (creator, maturity level, repo URL, layer). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_protocols.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when the user asks about a specific protocol' with concrete example queries, and the alternative 'Use compare_protocols instead' when comparing multiple protocols. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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 include readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds that the tool costs $0.01 USDC and accepts x402 (USDC on Base), plus notes the output is AI-classified/scored. There is no contradiction with the read-only or open-world hints.

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 well-structured: it opens with the core function, then explains the output, followed by usage guidance, alternatives, and cost/payment. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, cost, payment method, and alternatives. With only two optional parameters and no output schema, it provides all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema descriptions for both parameters (days and min_score) include meaning, examples, and defaults, providing full coverage. While the baseline for 100% coverage is 3, the concrete examples and default explanations elevate the clarity, though they don't go beyond what a well-written schema already offers.

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 scans GitHub, Hacker News, and npm for new repos, packages, and discussions in the agent payments ecosystem, and returns AI-classified/scored opportunities with recommended actions. It also explicitly names sibling tools (get_protocol_info, compare_protocols) to distinguish its purpose.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when the user asks about recent activity, new developments, or opportunities in agent payments, and directs the user to use get_protocol_info for static details or compare_protocols for side-by-side comparison. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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