list_base_ratesCatalog of all published Quiet Failures base rates: metric id, the global question, the current global figure, sample size, severity, and every published segment slug (valid segment values for get_base_rate). Use get_base_rate for full detail on one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by framing the tool as a read-only catalog. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns all published base rates and lists the fields included, which helps set expectations for output scope without conflicting with annotations.
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 efficient sentences: the first lists the contents, the second directs users to get_base_rate for detail. Every word contributes to clarity, and the most important information (catalog, contents) is front-loaded.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the burden on the description is to explain what the tool returns. It does this thoroughly by naming all fields (metric id, global question, current global figure, sample size, severity, segment slugs) and clarifying the relationship with get_base_rate. This is complete for a simple listing 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly omits parameter-specific semantics. It still adds value by explaining that the segment slugs are valid input values for get_base_rate, which indirectly clarifies how data from this tool relates to another tool's parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools.
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 it is a 'Catalog of all published Quiet Failures base rates' and enumerates the exact contents (metric id, global question, current global figure, sample size, severity, segment slugs). It also distinguishes itself from get_base_rate by noting that get_base_rate provides full detail on one entry.
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 differentiates this tool from get_base_rate with 'Use get_base_rate for full detail on one', establishing a clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use contrast. It also mentions that the segment slugs listed here are valid values for get_base_rate, providing actionable cross-tool guidance.
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.