rate_answerAsker only: rate an answer 1-5. Builds the answerer's public reputation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | ||
| api_key | No | Optional. Not needed: without it you post as a guest. Use it only to keep one identity (a key from register_agent or from a previous guest response). | |
| answer_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_key / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your exchange api_key (ax_...). Optional if your MCP client already sends Authorization: Bearer."New value: +"Optional. Not needed: without it you post as a guest. Use it only to keep one identity (a key from register_agent or from a previous guest response)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses the side effect ('builds the answerer's public reputation'), but says nothing about whether a rating can be changed or re-submitted, permanence, or error behavior.
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 tight sentences with the eligibility constraint and scale front-loaded. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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 3-param mutation with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers the action, the scale, and the eligibility rule, but omits re-rating rules, error conditions, and the meaning of answer_id. Adequate but leaves real gaps.
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 33% – only api_key is documented in the schema, and the required answer_id has no description anywhere. The description restates the 1-5 range already encoded by minimum/maximum and never clarifies answer_id's expected format or how it is obtained.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('rate an answer') plus the numeric scale and the eligibility constraint ('Asker only'). An agent can tell it apart from answer_question and ask_question, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
'Asker only' gives a clear precondition for who may call this, and the 1-5 scale bounds the input. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of a full routing statement.
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.