Measured execution benchmarks: median savings vs arrival quote by USD size bucket, from real completed intents only. Free, no auth.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_benchmarks"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that the data comes from real completed intents only and that the tool is free and requires no authentication. It does not describe return format or potential empty results, but for a simple no-parameter read-only tool, this is sufficient.
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 description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by access details. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns, the data source, and access requirements. It could specify the exact response shape, but the core information is complete enough for an agent to decide to call it.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about the output dimensions (USD size bucket) even though no parameter documentation is needed.
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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: returning measured execution benchmarks with a specific metric (median savings vs arrival quote) and segmentation (USD size bucket). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_quotes by emphasizing real completed intents, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 description implies usage: call this tool to obtain actual execution benchmark data rather than quotes or intents. It also notes 'Free, no auth,' which is useful access guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions.
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.