25 sales leads with a real funding, hiring or tech signal, source link and draft message. $19.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a distinct purpose: offer info, results retrieval, and usage/quota lookup. Minor overlap in that both offer and usage_and_upgrade surface the upgrade/payment link, which could cause slight confusion about which to call for purchasing guidance.
Two tools share a clean signal_leads_ prefix, but usage_and_upgrade breaks the pattern with a different scheme and no server prefix. Still readable, but conventions are mixed.
Three tools is thin for a service that sells leads; the surface feels more like a landing page wrapper than a functional toolset. Not egregious, but under-scoped for the apparent purpose.
There is no tool to actually place an order, generate/regenerate leads, or check order status; the offer tool only hands off a payment link. Results and usage are covered, but the core lifecycle (ordering) is only partially addressed.
What Signal Leads sells ($19 for 25 leads with a public funding/hiring/tech signal, source link and draft message each), the payment link, and what the buyer must enter at checkout (website, target customer). Use it when a user wants sales leads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content (price, what a lead includes, payment link, required checkout inputs), which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about whether the tool is a pure read, whether it has side effects, or whether pricing/availability can change.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the offering details and ends with the usage trigger; no filler. The parenthetical is long but every clause carries content, so the density is defensible.
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 no-argument, no-output-schema informational tool, the description covers what the tool surfaces and roughly when to use it, which is close to sufficient. The main residual gap is sibling differentiation against signal_leads_results and usage_and_upgrade.
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?
The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The mention of 'website, target customer' describes checkout inputs rather than tool parameters, so it neither helps nor harms parameter understanding.
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?
The description explains the subject matter the tool surfaces (the offer, price, payment link, checkout fields) but never states a verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves' for the tool itself, so the action is inferred rather than stated. It reads like a description of the offering rather than of the tool's operation, and it does not distinguish itself from signal_leads_results.
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?
It gives one condition: 'Use it when a user wants sales leads.' That is implied usage, but it is ambiguous because the sibling signal_leads_results presumably serves the same intent, and no distinction or exclusion is offered. The agent cannot tell from this text which of the two to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a finished Signal Leads order as JSON, given the results link or token from the buyer's thank-you page or email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | Yes | https://leads.botrecipe.com/r/<token> or the token |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the output is JSON and requires a results link/token, but doesn't disclose whether the fetch is read-only, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the token is invalid or the order isn't yet finished. These are moderate gaps for a fetch tool with no annotations.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and output format. No filler words; every phrase earns its place.
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?
Without annotations and without an output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It covers the main purpose and when to use it, but lacks behavioral details like error handling, authentication, or whether the fetch is read-only. For a fetch tool with a single parameter, it is minimally adequate but leaves 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 100%, so the parameter's meaning (a URL or token) is already fully described in the schema. The description adds no further detail about the link parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Specific verb ('Fetch') plus resource ('a finished Signal Leads order as JSON') and a clear output format. The description distinguishes it from siblings: signal_leads_offer and usage_and_upgrade are not about retrieving order results.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use the tool: given the results link or token from the buyer's thank-you page or email. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or what to do if the order isn't finished, but the condition is well-scoped.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show today's usage for your key or IP and the $19/one-time upgrade link. Free tier: 50 calls/day. Not metered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations or output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral context: the free tier is capped at 50 calls/day, the call itself is 'not metered' (so it does not consume quota), and the scope is limited to today and the caller's key or IP. It does not describe the response shape or what happens once the cap is hit, but the quota and non-metering disclosures are 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 short, front-loaded sentences that each carry information: what is returned, the pricing hook, and the quota rule. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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 with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (usage plus upgrade link), the caller's identity basis, and the free-tier limit. It only lacks detail on error/limit-exceeded behavior in a context where the schema adds nothing.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The hint that identity comes from 'your key or IP' is a small bonus for an argument-less tool.
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 two concrete outputs: today's usage for the caller's key or IP, plus a one-time upgrade link. It is clearly distinct from the sibling lead-generation tools, though it never names or contrasts them 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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs quota/usage status or an upgrade path. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, which is low-stakes here given only two unrelated siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
signal_leads_offersignal_leads_resultsusage_and_upgradeB2B buying signals: companies hiring salespeople, startups hiring sales, weekly funding rounds.
Real-time B2B buying signals on your target accounts: funding, hiring, leadership, tech stack.
B2B buying signals (job changes, funding, hiring) delivered as enriched leads, plus enrichment.
B2B sales intelligence — company emails, enrichment, lead lists, hiring & funding signals.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
