get_market_reportGet the latest scan for one of your registered apps, with each finding annotated by the jurisdictions and rules applicable to that app's target markets. Requires a LaunchTrust token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The id of a registered app. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing the authentication requirement (LaunchTrust token) and that it returns the latest scan, which is 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the token requirement is appended succinctly. Every sentence 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 one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function and prerequisite. It could mention the output format or emphasize that it returns annotated findings, but it's nearly complete for a simple tool.
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 a description for app_id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 gets the latest scan for a registered app with market-annotated findings. It uses specific verb+resource and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like get_scan_history (history) or list_jurisdictions (jurisdictions).
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 mentions the prerequisite (LaunchTrust token) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tool differentiation is only implicit through the description's focus on market annotations.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving rules vs jurisdictions vs scan results vs triggering scans vs verification. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun (snake_case) pattern: get_, list_, register_, scan_, verify_. Conventions are uniform throughout.
9 tools cover the essential operations for compliance scanning: registration, scanning (full and quick), results retrieval, history, and verification. The scope feels well-calibrated.
Core CRUD-like coverage is present: register, scan, read results, verify. Missing update/delete for apps or scans is a minor gap but not critical for the domain's primary workflow.