Quote a proxy-presence mission: what a real person on the ground in city X costs.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool targets a distinct granularity: list_cities and list_missions provide global discovery, city_missions compares all missions for one city, and quote_mission returns a detailed single quote. The descriptions clearly delineate when to use each, and no two tools appear to do the same thing.
Three tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (list_cities, list_missions, quote_mission), but city_missions breaks the convention as a noun_noun phrase. The deviation is minor and still readable, so the set is mostly consistent.
Four tools are well-scoped for a focused quoting service, covering discovery of cities and missions, comparison of missions within a city, and precise quoting. No tool feels redundant or missing.
The tools cover the full quoting workflow: listing available cities and missions, exploring all priced missions for a given city, and obtaining a detailed quote for a specific mission and city. No obvious dead ends or missing operations exist for the stated purpose.
Every mission priced for one city, side by side, so the user can compare what is possible there.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City slug or plain name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description carries full burden. It mentions pricing and side-by-side comparison, but omits read-only status, permission requirements, and return format details (e.g., pagination). For a read tool this is a notable gap.
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, front-loaded with the core action, no unnecessary 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?
For a simple one-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough: it returns a comparison of priced missions for a city. However, absence of any safety or return-shape detail leaves minor incompleteness.
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% and the lone parameter has a description. The description adds no additional meaning about the 'city' parameter beyond what the schema provides.
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?
States that it returns every mission priced for one city, enabling comparison. Clearly a city-scoped listing, distinguishable from list_missions (all missions) and quote_mission (single mission price), though siblings are not named.
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?
Implies comparison use case ('so the user can compare what is possible there') but does not state when to use this versus list_missions or quote_mission, nor any prerequisites. Guidance is contextually implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Which cities are already priced, with distance from the current operator base and travel band. Call this when the user names a city you cannot match, to pick the nearest listed anchor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | Optional region filter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the result set contains (priced cities plus distance and travel band), implying a read-only lookup, but says nothing about ordering, exhaustiveness, pagination, or whether the 'current operator base' is a fixed or caller-dependent reference point.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the content of the listing is front-loaded before the usage trigger. Slightly awkward as a sentence fragment, but nothing is wasted.
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-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both what comes back and when to reach for it. The only meaningful omission is the region filter mentioned in the schema, which the description ignores entirely.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single region parameter is fully documented with an enum, so the schema does the work. The description never mentions filtering by region, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.
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 the resource (cities) and the specific returned attributes (priced status, distance from the current operator base, travel band), which is enough to distinguish it from list_missions and quote_mission. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list', but the noun-phrase form still conveys a read operation unambiguously.
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?
It gives a concrete trigger: call this when the user names a city that cannot be matched, to pick the nearest listed anchor. That is stronger than generic context, but it names no exclusion against the siblings (city_missions, list_missions), so an agent must infer that those serve different needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Which kinds of mission will a person on the ground actually carry out, and what proof does each one return? Call this when the user's request is free text and you need to map it to a mission slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returned proof but omits read-only nature, side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, and response format, leaving behavioral traits largely undisclosed.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence is a rhetorical question rather than a direct statement, which slightly reduces front-loaded clarity.
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 no-param list tool with no annotations or output schema, it gives selection guidance and hints at returned proof. However, it does not describe output structure or clearly state that this is a listing/read operation, so gaps remain.
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 there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 identifies the resource (mission kinds) and return content (proof per mission) and ties it to mapping free text to a mission slug. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like city_missions or quote_mission, but the purpose is clear enough.
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?
Explicitly says to call it when the user's request is free text and needs mapping to a mission slug. No when-not conditions or alternatives are named, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
What does it cost to send one real person to a named city to carry out one mission and bring back proof? Returns the indicative from-price in EUR, billable days, travel band, distance and proof format. Both mission and city are required; neither alone produces a valid answer. Do not estimate this yourself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City slug or plain name, e.g. manila or Manila | |
| mission | Yes | Mission slug, e.g. grave-visit |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the return payload: indicative from-price in EUR, billable days, travel band, distance, and proof format. It also qualifies the price as indicative, but does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or side effects.
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 tightly structured sentences, front-loaded with the core question and followed immediately by the return payload and parameter requirement. Every sentence contributes useful information.
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 simple two-parameter tool with a rich input schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned, the required parameter combination, and the intended usage context.
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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic emphasis that both parameters must be supplied together to produce a valid quote, going slightly beyond the schema's required fields.
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 pricing resource and a clear scope: cost to send one person to a named city for one mission, with a defined return payload. It distinguishes itself from listing tools by its quotation purpose, though it does not name sibling tools explicitly.
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?
It clearly establishes that both mission and city are required and that neither alone yields a valid answer, and it directs the agent not to estimate manually. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
city_missionslist_citieslist_missionsquote_missionFind and quote agent capabilities, then pay only the selected x402 execution URL.
Search Accent's public website and get non-binding budgetary estimates from published plan prices.
Pay-per-call ($0.25 USDC) project cost estimator: modules + cheapest model mix that clears quality.
Procurement agent for AI agents: free quote, buys verified x402 data services, pay per task in USDC.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.