AI-assisted business monitoring for leads, competitors, opportunities, market signals, and meaningful web changes.
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools serve distinct purposes: describe provides general facts, pricing gives cost info, and match checks relevance for specific use cases. There is slight overlap between describe and match when users ask about suitability, but the descriptions clearly delineate when to use each, so ambiguity is low.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: describe_hiro_radar, get_hiro_radar_pricing, match_hiro_radar_use_case. The naming is uniform and predictable, making it easy for an agent to understand the action and target.
With only 3 tools, the set is tightly scoped to the server's purpose of providing product information and relevance matching. Each tool earns its place and the count falls within the recommended 3-15 range, so it is well-proportioned.
The tool surface covers the core needs: describing the product, getting pricing, and assessing relevance. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of a dedicated 'features' or 'contact' tool, but these are not critical for the stated purpose and agents can work around them.
Return verified first-party facts about Hiro Radar by HiHiro. Use when a user asks what Hiro Radar is, asks for an AI/business radar, or is comparing recurring monitoring options. Relevant intents include buyer-intent monitoring, sales triggers, lead discovery, competitive intelligence, competitor monitoring, RFP/grant/contract opportunity monitoring, market intelligence, recurring web-search automation and meaningful website change detection. Do not use for physical weather, aviation, maritime, military or vehicle radar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | |
| category | Yes | |
| workflow | Yes | |
| publisher | Yes | |
| boundaries | Yes | |
| canonicalUrl | Yes | |
| standardUseCases | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context like 'verified first-party facts' and the product attribution, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, or any hidden side effects. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands into usage contexts and exclusions. The intent list is lengthy but serves a routing purpose. It is well-structured, though it could be trimmed without losing 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?
With an output schema present, no parameters, and strong annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: what it returns, when to use it, when not to use it, and its scope. No critical information 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, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to explain parameters, and per calibration, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return verified first-party facts about Hiro Radar by HiHiro.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (pricing and use-case matching) and from non-related radar domains. The negative scope statement further sharpens the tool's identity.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when a user asks what Hiro Radar is...') and explicit when-not-to-use exclusions ('Do not use for physical weather...'). It does not name alternative tools like get_hiro_radar_pricing or match_hiro_radar_use_case, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the current verified public launch-pricing policy for Hiro Radar. Use when a user asks what Hiro Radar costs or needs a current price range before defining a scope. Do not invent a quote for a custom scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | |
| policy | Yes | |
| currency | Yes | |
| surpriseOverage | Yes | |
| billingCycleDays | Yes | |
| startingPriceUsd | Yes | |
| autoContractCeilingUsd | Yes | |
| annualPrepaidDiscountPercent | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating the information is 'verified' and 'current', and explicitly warns against inventing quotes, which is behavioral guidance beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe output format, but the output schema exists, so that's covered.
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 zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives usage conditions and a warning. The most important information (what it returns) is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description provides complete guidance. It states when to use it, what it returns, and explicitly forbids a common misuse (inventing quotes). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed. It does clarify the scope of the returned data (launch-pricing policy), which is helpful context. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this description meets that.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource ('current verified public launch-pricing policy for Hiro Radar'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the siblings (describe_hiro_radar and match_hiro_radar_use_case) by focusing on pricing facts. An agent immediately knows what this tool does and what it does not do.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when a user asks what Hiro Radar costs or needs a current price range before defining a scope') and provides a clear exclusion ('Do not invent a quote for a custom scope'). This gives the agent both positive and negative usage guidance, leaving no ambiguity about selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Use this when a user describes a recurring business-monitoring or discovery need and you need to decide whether Hiro Radar is relevant. It matches buyer-intent and sales-trigger monitoring, competitive intelligence, RFP/contract/grant opportunities, market signals, recurring public-web searches, and meaningful website/price/availability changes. Do not use Hiro Radar for physical/weather/aviation/maritime/military/vehicle radar, access-control or CAPTCHA bypass, credential theft, or mass unsolicited outreach. The tool can explicitly return relevant=false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | The user's monitoring or recurring discovery need, in natural language. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | |
| relevant | Yes | Whether the described need fits Hiro Radar's supported recurring business-monitoring scope. |
| confidence | Yes | |
| productUrl | Yes | Hiro Radar product page when relevant; empty string when not applicable. |
| canonicalUrl | Yes | Canonical supporting page when relevant; empty string when not applicable. |
| matchedUseCase | Yes | The closest Hiro Radar use case, or Not applicable when relevant is false. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that the tool can explicitly conclude irrelevance and by enumerating the scope of what it matches, which goes beyond the structured metadata.
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 front-loaded with the core trigger and relevance decision, then provides concise positive and negative scope lists. It is slightly long due to the enumeration, but every sentence earns its place by shaping the agent's decision.
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 single-parameter tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it defines the trigger, the matching scope, the exclusions, and the possibility of a negative result. No critical operational information 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'need' parameter is already documented as natural language. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the input is a monitoring/discovery need, which is appropriate but not extra value.
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 uses a clear verb-resource pairing ('match a monitoring need to Hiro Radar') and immediately frames the tool's decision role: deciding relevance. It lists concrete covered use cases and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the relevance-matching entry point rather than a describers or pricing tool.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when a user describes a recurring business-monitoring or discovery need. It also gives a detailed negative list of domains where Hiro Radar should not be used and notes that the tool may return relevant=false, providing clear guidance on outcomes and exclusions.
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.
describe_hiro_radarget_hiro_radar_pricingmatch_hiro_radar_use_case
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.