list_serial_patternsThe 17 fancy serial number patterns collectors look for on US bills (ladder, solid, radar, repeater, binary, birthday, low serial and the rest): a strict definition, an example, how many of the 100,000,000 possible eight-digit serials match, and the odds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 17 patterns with definitions, examples, match counts, and odds, providing output-shape transparency despite no output schema. However, no mention of whether this is a static reference or computed data.
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?
Efficient single sentence that front-loads the count and list of patterns, followed by the data fields provided per pattern. No wasted words, though the parenthetical list is long.
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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description tells the agent what the tool returns (17 patterns, definitions, examples, match counts, odds) and its domain (US bills). With annotations and full schema coverage, this is nearly complete; minor gap is no explicit output schema but description compensates.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% but no parameters exist; description appropriately doesn't discuss parameter semantics.
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 (list) and resource (fancy serial number patterns) with enumeration of what the resource contains. Clearly distinguished from sibling check_serial (checks a single serial) and find_star_runs.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus check_serial or find_star_runs. The description is purely a content summary with no routing context or usage conditions.
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.