Successor-contract verdict from the stored pre-move snapshot ($0.01/call)
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "successor_check"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 a cost trait ('$0.01/call'), which is real context beyond structured fields, but says nothing about whether the call mutates state, what it returns, or its auth/rate-limit profile.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded before the cost note. It is arguably too terse for a tool whose return value is undefined, but nothing is wasted.
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 tool with no output schema, the description need not enumerate return fields, but 'verdict' is left entirely undefined and the relationship to the get_verdict sibling is unexplained, leaving a real gap in how an agent would interpret the result.
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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description's only 'input' concept (the stored snapshot) is contextual rather than a parameter.
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 phrase 'successor-contract verdict' names a resource and the 'stored pre-move snapshot' names its source, but there is no clear verb and the jargon is unexplained. Critically, a sibling named get_verdict exists and the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from it, leaving an agent unsure which verdict tool to pick.
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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. 'Stored pre-move snapshot' hints at a precondition but never states it as a trigger condition, and nothing routes the agent between this and get_verdict.
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.