Submit a free numeric (or JSON) answer to a poll by slug. Numbers are aggregated. Strings, booleans, and null are stored only. Poll unlock $1. Asker posts $1–$5. Reader unlock $1. Answers are free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | Poll answer. A number is included in the aggregates. A string, boolean, or null is stored and left out of the mean, median, and histogram. | |
| source | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / value / descriptionAdded value: +"Poll answer. A number is included in the aggregates. A string, boolean, or null is stored and left out of the mean, median, and histogram."Input schema / properties / value / oneOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "format": "double",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that numbers are aggregated while strings, booleans, and null are stored only, which is real behavioral context. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, reversibility, and rate limits — gaps that matter for a write tool.
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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the pricing tail is a fragmented staccato of telegraphic clauses ('Poll unlock $1. Asker posts $1–$5...') that adds bulk without clarifying invocation.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and partial parameter coverage, the definition gives only aggregation behavior. It leaves out authorization, error/duplicate handling, and the role of the source param, so it is adequate but not complete.
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 33%: slug and source have no descriptions. The description reinforces the value-typing behavior already documented in the schema, but adds nothing for slug (scope/what a slug is) or source (human vs agent), leaving two of three params under-explained.
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 and resource: 'Submit a free numeric (or JSON) answer to a poll by slug.' This is clear, but it does not differentiate from the very close sibling submit_poll_answer, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 trailing sentences ('Poll unlock $1. Asker posts $1–$5. Reader unlock $1. Answers are free.') convey cost, not when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over submit_poll_answer or answer_ask.
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.