find_base_rateSearch the Quiet Failures base rates by keyword (e.g. "dmarc", "certificate expiry uk", "subdomain takeover"). Returns matching metrics and their most citable segments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Keywords to search for (at least 2 characters) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it returns 'matching metrics and their most citable segments,' which clarifies the output focus beyond a generic search. This extra detail justifies a score above baseline.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes practical examples. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. The description explains what the tool returns ('matching metrics and their most citable segments'), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the outcome. It does not mention edge cases or pagination, but those are not critical for a single-query search tool.
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 parameter 'query' is described as 'Keywords to search for (at least 2 characters)'. The description adds example keywords ('dmarc', 'certificate expiry uk', 'subdomain takeover') but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specifies a clear action ('Search'), a resource ('Quiet Failures base rates'), and a method ('by keyword') with examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_base_rate (likely fetch by ID) and list_base_rates (list all) by emphasizing keyword-based search and returning matching metrics and segments.
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 implies the tool is for keyword search, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of siblings like get_base_rate or list_base_rates. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, so the usage context is only implied, not explicit.
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: the three check_* tools target different failure modes (email auth, subdomain takeover, WHOIS), and the three base rate tools are distinguished by their roles (list catalog, search, get detail). No overlap or ambiguity.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_* and get/find/list), but there is a minor inconsistency: 'list_base_rates' uses plural while 'find_base_rate' and 'get_base_rate' use singular. Otherwise the naming is predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a specialized security scanner: three live checks and three data access functions. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of the stated purpose: live checks for three common failure types plus a complete knowledge base with list, search, and detail endpoints. No obvious gaps or dead ends.