Submit a numeric answer to a poll. Answers are free. Same as submit_answer. 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?
No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys cost context (poll unlock, asker posts, reader unlock, free answers), which is useful, but omits mutation/side-effect behavior, authentication needs, and error handling.
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?
Purpose is reasonably front-loaded, but the text is bloated with repetitive, tangential pricing copy: 'Answers are free' appears twice, and the unlock/posting price fragments are not needed to invoke the tool.
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 only 33% schema coverage, the description is incomplete: it says nothing about the result, permissions, or what happens on invalid input, and only partially addresses parameter meaning.
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%: value is well documented in the schema, but slug and source are undocumented in both schema and description. Worse, the description's 'numeric answer' undersells the schema's value semantics (string/boolean/null are stored but excluded from aggregates), adding confusion rather than compensating for the gap.
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 numeric answer to a poll'), so the basic action is identifiable. However, the word 'numeric' is inaccurate given the schema accepts string/boolean/null, and the sibling differentiation is a non-distinguishing claim ('Same as submit_answer') rather than a real contrast.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance or any condition distinguishing this from the many siblings (submit_answer, answer_ask, create_ask, etc.). Saying 'Same as submit_answer' asserts equivalence without helping an agent choose between them.
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.