What the Kingdom of Kantrom sells to AI agents, prices and payment networks (x402, USDC).
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": "catalogo"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the domain content (offerings, prices, x402/USDC payment rails) but never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup, nor anything about result size or freshness — modest but real added context for a zero-parameter tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The subject (what is sold) comes first and the qualifiers (prices, payment networks) follow compactly.
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, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description conveys enough for an agent to know what content will come back. The only soft spot is the absence of any statement about read-only behavior, which would matter if an agent is deciding whether calling it is safe.
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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing filter semantics.
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 names a concrete resource (what the 'Kingdom of Kantrom' sells) plus the data it carries (prices, payment networks x402/USDC), which goes well beyond the bare name 'catalogo'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as 'que_es_kantrom' or 'consultar_boe', so it stops short of a 5.
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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call for product/pricing/payment-network information. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. 'use que_es_kantrom for general background').
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.