Search InstrumentEquivalence rows by construct_id and/or instrument_id. instrument_id matches either side of the pair. Optional mapping_method filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| construct_id | No | ||
| instrument_id | No | ||
| mapping_method | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| matches | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: instrument_id matches either side of the equivalence pair, and mapping_method is an optional filter. This helps the agent understand matching semantics not visible from the schema.
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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core search behavior, then adds the key matching nuance and the optional filter. Every sentence 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?
For a simple search tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the main filters and the crucial 'either side' matching rule. The only notable gap is the absence of guidance on selecting this tool over its lookup sibling, but that is more of a usage-guidance issue, and the essential invocation details are present.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It covers construct_id, instrument_id (including the 'either side' nuance), and mapping_method, but omits limit. Though limit is fairly self-explanatory from its name and schema constraints, the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 that the tool searches InstrumentEquivalence rows using construct_id and/or instrument_id, naming the specific resource and the two main filtering criteria. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling principia.equivalences.lookup, but the action and resource are unambiguous.
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 guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over its siblings, particularly over principia.equivalences.lookup. The description does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this search tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.