Curated cybersecurity salary benchmark bands (USD + local currency) across 21 countries including the US, EU, Gulf (tax-free), India, LatAm, and Africa.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | Role to benchmark | |
| country | No | Optional country name; omit for all 21 countries |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose safety traits (e.g., read-only, any authorization needs) and limitations (e.g., data freshness, defaults when country omitted). It only mentions geographic scope, lacking behavioral context.
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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and geographic scope. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly expanded with usage hints without losing conciseness.
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?
No output schema is provided, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., salary ranges, percentiles, currency bands). It only names what the tool covers, not what the output looks like or how to interpret results, leaving the agent underinformed.
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% (both parameters described). The description adds context for the 'country' parameter by listing examples (US, EU, Gulf, India, LatAm, Africa), but adds no additional meaning for the 'role' parameter beyond its enum. 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?
The description clearly states the tool provides cybersecurity salary benchmark bands across 21 countries, using specific verbs like 'curated' and 'benchmark'. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., market_stats, search_jobs) by focusing on salary bands.
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 implicitly suggests it's for salary benchmarks across countries, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like market_stats or get_job, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.