SCRIPTMASTERLABS — GhostKey MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that staged paid families are not callable and that only actually exposed capabilities are listed, which is honest and useful. It does not mention a read-only guarantee or error behavior, but the listing semantics are reasonably clear from the verb choice.

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 entire description is a single sentence with the key action front-loaded. Every phrase adds meaning, especially the caveat about staged paid families, and there is no filler 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?

For a zero-parameter server introspection tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed and the one critical caveat about staged families. It does not describe the exact response shape, but with no output schema and a simple 'list capabilities' intent, that is a minor gap.

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 and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter-specific text, but this is acceptable for a parameterless tool; baseline 4 applies.

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 ('List') and names the exact resource ('capabilities actually exposed by this GhostKey MCP server'). It also draws a clear boundary by saying staged paid families are identified but not presented as callable, which distinguishes it from the sibling 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?

The description implies this is a discovery/introspection tool rather than an operational one, but it never names siblings or states when to use this tool instead of ghostkey_policy, ghostkey_quote, or ghostkey_status. Usage context is present only by implication.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, requires no authentication, or has no side effects. For a simple policy retrieval, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording, and the key details (operating, payment, upstream-rights policy) are 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?

For a tool with no parameters and a simple read-only nature, the description adequately explains what is returned. It does not detail the exact structure of the policy, but that may be unnecessary since the description itself defines the content.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It correctly focuses on the return value instead.

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 explicitly states a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('GhostKey's operating, payment, and upstream-rights policy'), and an intended audience ('for autonomous agents'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ghostkey_catalog or ghostkey_status, which are likely different resource types.

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 that this tool is used when an agent needs policy-related information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer that it is for policy lookups only.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds a key behavioral rule: pricing and settlement destination must come from the fresh live HTTP 402 challenge, never copied/stale data. But it does not describe the request/response behavior, side effects, or error cases.

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 short sentences front-load the purpose and then add a non-obvious sourcing constraint. No filler or 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns and how the caller obtains the live 402 challenge. It mentions pricing and settlement destination but leaves the output format, challenge acquisition, and error behavior undefined.

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 schema has one 'capability' string with no description (0% coverage). The description adds that the capability is a GhostKey/SML paid capability, but it does not specify accepted values, format, or how the capability should be identified, so compensation is partial.

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 names a specific resource and goal: obtaining authoritative pricing for a GhostKey/SML paid capability. It is distinct from sibling catalog/policy/status tools, but the verb 'Explain how to obtain' is somewhat indirect and does not explicitly say the tool returns a quote.

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 implies use when authoritative pricing/settlement destination is needed and explicitly warns against copied wallets or stale fixed prices. However, it never names siblings or states when to prefer ghostkey_catalog/policy/status, leaving selection to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that unknown statuses are not fabricated, which is a non-obvious honesty guarantee. However, it does not explain possible result values, side effects, or what 'status' concretely includes.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about not fabricating results is stated efficiently.

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 zero-parameter status tool, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It would be more complete with expected response shape, but the simple scope mitigates the lack of an output schema.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The mention of a 'configured' authority adds useful context about what the status check targets, satisfying the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Report') and resource ('GhostKey server status') and adds a specific reachability check against the ScriptMasterLabs x402 authority. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like catalog, policy, and quote.

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 versus alternatives, and no mention of conditions that would make a sibling more appropriate. The intended usage is implied by the tool's purpose, but nothing actively routes the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.