Easy Labs MCP Server

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read, and the description adds the output format (markdown with frontmatter) and the dependency on list_pages. This goes beyond the annotation by describing what the response looks like and what prior call is needed.

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 action and examples, and the second sentence adds the essential dependency on list_pages. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched, the markdown format, and how to obtain a valid path. It omits error-handling behavior, but that is not critical for correct invocation.

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 already documents the path parameter with an example (/pricing), and the description reinforces that paths come from list_pages while adding more example paths like /faq and /developers. With 100% schema coverage, the description provides only marginal additional meaning, so 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 clearly states the tool fetches any itseasy.co page as markdown with title/description frontmatter, and provides concrete path examples. It also differentiates from siblings by noting paths come from list_pages and by covering all pages rather than a subset like get_pricing_rates.

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 tells the agent that paths must come from list_pages, implying a required precursor call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the scope and examples make the intended context clear.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so this is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by stating this returns the same published numbers as /pricing and mentions 'No monthly or setup fees,' but it does not cover auth/rate limits or return-value details. That is acceptable for a simple public pricing endpoint.

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, front-loaded with the core resource and purpose, and every sentence adds information. The parenthetical channel list and the no-fees note are useful without bloating the text.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the important context: what pricing is returned, in what format, and where the numbers come from. It stops short of detailing the exact JSON shape, but the low complexity and schema documentation make the tool adequately specified.

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 already fully documents the single 'channel' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description lists 'wallets' as a payment channel, while the schema enum contains only card-domestic, card-amex, card-international, card-keyed, ach, and stablecoin. This mismatch could lead an agent to pass an invalid value like 'wallets'.

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 names the resource ('Easy's published processing rates' / 'flat-rate pricing per payment channel') and specifies the output form ('structured JSON'). It also enumerates the pricing categories, making it easy to distinguish from the page-focused 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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool to retrieve Easy's published flat-rate pricing as JSON, with the same figures as /pricing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct from get_page and list_pages that no alternate routing is needed.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses useful behavioral details: the tool returns a curated, section-grouped index with titles and descriptions, not raw content. This gives the agent a solid expectation of what the response will contain without overclaiming.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, output format, and sibling routing with no wasted words. The title is expanded meaningfully and the guidance is front-loaded.

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, zero-required-parameter list tool with a readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, how results are organized, and where to go for page details. Nothing essential is missing.

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 already fully documents the optional section parameter, including case-insensitivity and examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond confirming that pages are grouped by section, 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 clearly states this is a curated index of every page on itseasy.co, grouped by section with titles and descriptions. The verb 'List' plus the resource and output contents make the purpose unmistakable, and it is clearly distinct from the sibling get_page tool.

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 explicitly points to get_page for reading pages, which provides clear routing between list and detail tools. It does not mention when to prefer get_pricing_rates, but this is not necessary to disambiguate the current tool's core use case.

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