Add/remove members or rename a custom benchmark. Creates a NEW immutable version (the previous version stays fully reproducible) and returns the exact change-impact on the median/quartiles/index. Pass benchmark_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| add | No | ||
| remove | No | ||
| rename | No | ||
| benchmark_id | Yes | Your cb_ token |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: creating a new immutable version while preserving reproducibility of the previous version, and returning exact change-impact on median/quartiles/index. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or rate limits.
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 long, front-loads the primary action, and adds crucial behavioral information in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary content.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core behavior (modification with immutability) and the nature of the return value. It lacks details on prerequisites and error conditions, but overall is sufficiently complete for its 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 only 25% (only benchmark_id described). The description adds meaning by explaining that 'add' and 'remove' manage members and 'rename' changes the name, but it does not specify the format of member strings or provide detail on the benchmark_id token. It partially compensates for low schema coverage but leaves ambiguity.
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's actions: 'Add/remove members or rename a custom benchmark.' It identifies the specific resource type (custom benchmark) and differentiates from sibling tools like create_custom_benchmark and delete_custom_benchmark by focusing on modifications.
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 implies this tool is for modifying an existing benchmark (vs. creating or deleting), but it does not explicitly compare to siblings or specify when not to use it. The instruction 'Pass `benchmark_id`' provides basic usage guidance but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few pairs could cause confusion: get_provider vs get_provider_profile overlap in scope (one is a card, the other a full profile), and research_capability explicitly bundles find_niche, niche_report, price_benchmark, and search_providers, creating layered redundancy. However, the detailed descriptions clearly differentiate the entry-point tools from the lower-level ones.
The majority follow a verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, get_, search_, suggest_, etc.), but a few tools use bare noun phrases (demand_signals, market_gaps, niche_report, price_benchmark) rather than imperative or get_ prefixes. This is a minor inconsistency that doesn't harm readability.
At 19 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct, justified function within the market-intelligence and provider-directory domain. The count feels appropriate for the breadth of features (search, research, comparison, pricing, indexes, benchmarks, and feedback).
The tool surface is very comprehensive: full CRUD for custom benchmarks, multiple discovery paths (search, research, gaps, demand signals), pricing and index tools, profile/detail tools, comparison and alternatives, plus outcome reporting. There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the stated purpose.
