check_non_compete_enforceabilityWhether a non-compete agreement is enforceable, limited, or void in a given US state (or DC), with salary thresholds and the key statute. Data covers all 50 states + DC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | US state name or slug, e.g. "California" or "california" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the output categories (enforceable, limited, void) and included data (salary thresholds, statute). Does not mention potential limitations or side effects, but for a read-only lookup this is acceptable.
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 well-structured sentences, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input, and output. Mentions specific data points (salary thresholds, statute) but could be more precise about what 'key statute' entails. Overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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% with one parameter. Description adds value by providing an example input ('California' or 'california') and clarifying slug format, which goes beyond the schema description.
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 explicitly states the tool checks enforceability of non-compete agreements by US state, including whether enforceable, limited, or void, along with salary thresholds and key statute. Covers all 50 states + DC, clearly distinguishing it from broader contract analysis tools.
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 this tool vs. alternatives. While the description implies it's for state-specific non-compete law, it does not provide when-not scenarios or mention related tools like analyze_contract or get_jurisdiction_requirements.
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: analyzing existing contracts, checking non-compete enforceability, managing draft lifecycle (questions, start, status, checkout), listing types, and getting jurisdiction requirements. No two tools have overlapping functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., analyze_contract, get_checkout_link, list_contract_types), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 8 tools covering contract analysis, drafting, and legal requirements, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool serves a necessary function without bloat or deficiency.
The tool set covers listing, intake, drafting, status checking, payment, analysis, and legal requirements. However, after payment there is no tool to retrieve the full contract text programmatically; users must visit a URL, which is a minor gap.