Live aggregate cybersecurity hiring stats: total open security roles, new this week, remote share, salary-disclosure rate, and top specializations / seniorities / countries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions 'live' but doesn't disclose data freshness, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple read-only tool, it's adequate but not rich.
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?
Single sentence listing all relevant stats upfront. No wasted words.
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 no parameters and no output schema, description covers the main purpose well. Could mention output format or pagination, but tool is simple.
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?
No parameters; baseline is 4. Schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Description adds no parameter info, but none 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?
Description clearly states it provides live aggregate cybersecurity hiring stats with specific metrics listed. Distinguishes from siblings like get_job (single job) and search_jobs (search).
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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The description implies it's for aggregate stats, but lacks direct comparison or when-not-to-use advice.
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 purpose: get_job for a single job, market_stats for aggregate stats, salary_benchmark for salary data, search_jobs for searching, and top_employers for company rankings. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase_with_underscores pattern (e.g., get_job, market_stats, salary_benchmark, search_jobs, top_employers). No mixing of conventions.
5 tools is well-scoped for a job board server: covers retrieval, search, statistics, benchmarks, and employer rankings without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers core job board functionality (search, detail, stats, salary info, top employers). Minor gap: no explicit list_all tool, but search_jobs with broad criteria and a full-list URL effectively covers that.