entities_exportEvery entity of Bags That Pay register, 200 a page, with provenance. Needs an access key (Authorization: Bearer); export pages are metered per key per day. Without a key the answer says how to get one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| pageSize | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the auth requirement (Authorization: Bearer), the per-key-per-day metering (rate limit), and the unauthenticated behavior (returns how to get a key). It omits what 'provenance' concretely includes and how pagination terminates, but the auth/rate-limit disclosure is genuinely useful.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then auth/metering details. No filler, though the final sentence about the no-key response is a slight tangent.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply context, and it covers purpose, auth, rate limits, pagination, and error behavior. It stops short of explaining the 'provenance' payload or how a caller knows it has reached the last page, leaving a small gap for a bulk-export 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 0% for the two params, so the description must compensate. '200 a page' conveys the default/max page size corresponding to pageSize, and 'in pages' hints at the page param, but neither parameter's semantics (defaults, starting page, ceiling behavior) is explained beyond that implication.
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 resource (every entity of the Bags That Pay register) and a clear scope that distinguishes a full bulk export from the search/lookup siblings (entities_search, entity_lookup). It does not name a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Every entity ... in pages,' suggesting a full-register dump rather than a filtered query, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer that search/lookup siblings exist for targeted retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.