get_startedFree, no auth. Service overview, pricing, current account status, and how to get an API key for the data tools.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_started"
}
}| 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 carries the full burden and does disclose two important traits: 'Free' and 'no auth', so the agent knows no credentials are required. It does not state rate limits or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, but for a zero-parameter informational endpoint this is solid disclosure.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the two most decision-relevant facts (free, no auth) before listing what the call returns. Every clause earns its place.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description must signal the returned content, and it does enumerate it (overview, pricing, account status, API key guidance). Slightly more detail on the response shape would be ideal, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to call 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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter semantics to document or omit. The description correctly does not invent parameters.
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 names concrete content — service overview, pricing, account status, and API key retrieval — and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling data tools by calling them 'the data tools'. It is not a bare restatement of the name, though 'Get started' remains a loose frame for what is really an onboarding/account-info endpoint.
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?
Usage is clearly implied: call this to understand the service, check pricing/account status, or obtain an API key before using the data tools. There is no explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the reference to the sibling data tools gives the agent a usable routing signal.
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.