Tollmint

psych_biases

Cognitive biases with their mechanism, the conditions that trigger them, documented countermeasures, and an exploitation-risk score. Every entry carries its citation and replication status. Use to audit a decision process, to harden a system against manipulation, or to check your own reasoning. Free — this call costs nothing. No account or payment required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`domain`	No
`offset`	No
`search`	No
`actionable_only`	No	Exclude effects that failed replication. Defaults true — countering a non-existent bias wastes effort.
`replication_status`	No

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It states the call costs nothing and requires no account, signaling safe, read-only operation. However, does not mention rate limits or data sensitivity beyond that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences front-load key content and use cases. No redundancy; every sentence adds value. Appropriate length for a retrieval tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Complex tool with 6 parameters and no output schema. Description does not explain return format, pagination (though offset/limit exist), or how filters (domain, search, replication_status) affect results. Incomplete for agent to confidently invoke.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17% (one parameter documented). The description adds no meaning about parameters like limit, domain, offset, search, or replication_status. Agent left to infer from names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it provides cognitive biases with mechanism, triggers, countermeasures, and exploitation-risk score. It distinguishes itself from siblings like psych_heuristics and psych_dark-patterns by naming 'biases' explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly lists use cases: audit decision process, harden system, check reasoning. Also notes it is free with no account needed. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but context from siblings aids differentiation.

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

All Tollmint tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

All 20 tools have clearly distinct purposes, grouped by domain prefixes (content_ai, design_ai, legal, psych, ref, tollmint, web). Even similar-sounding tools like psych_dark-pattern-detect and psych_dark-patterns are differentiated as a live scanner versus a reference taxonomy. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming mostly follows a prefix_descriptive pattern, but some tools use hyphens (content_ai-score, design_ai-slop-detect) while others use underscores (legal_accessibility, psych_biases). This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score, but the pattern is still clear and readable.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools is slightly above the typical 'well-scoped' range, but each tool serves a specific, justifiable need across multiple domains (legal, psychology, content analysis, geocoding, internal). The count feels comprehensive rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers all major areas implied by the domain prefixes: comprehensive legal compliance references, extensive psychology/behavioral design tools, content and design analysis, geocoding, and internal server management. No obvious gaps for the intended use cases.

Resources

Need Help?