enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Crypto AML Policy: it starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly. Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free. Also returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key non-obvious traits: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; the enquiry is free. It also specifies what the tool returns: who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that the tool itself is side-effect-free, but 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' strongly implies a read-only descriptive role.
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 three tight sentences with no fluff. 'Read first' is a useful front-loaded instruction, followed by a clear summary of the described action and its key caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value.
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 parameterless, no-output-schema tool, the description fully explains what the tool is for and what information it returns. It covers the practical outcome, the non-purchase/non-guarantee caveats, and the specific return content. Given the low complexity, nothing essential is missing.
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 description cannot meaningfully add parameter-level detail. The input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, leaving no gap for the description to fill. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 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?
The description states a specific purpose: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Crypto AML Policy. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by being the read-first explanatory tool rather than the action tool. The title reinforces the purpose by describing what the user gets from an enquiry.
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?
'Read first' explicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before proceeding, establishing clear timing. It references submit_enquiry as the action being described, giving context for when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly list exclusion cases or alternatives beyond the implied relationship with submit_enquiry.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: describing the process, providing the field schema, and submitting the enquiry. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Two tools share the 'enquiry_' prefix pattern, while 'submit_enquiry' follows a verb-first convention. This is a minor inconsistency but still readable and predictable overall.
Three tools is a well-scoped set for a narrowly defined enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary step in the workflow without bloat.
The set covers the full lifecycle for this domain: describing the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations.