get_biasSynonym of get_decision: GO / WAIT / CLOSE with bias and rule hits. Call this when you need the current directional bias.
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": "get_bias"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the return shape (GO / WAIT / CLOSE plus bias and rule hits), which matters because there is no output schema, but it does not explain what 'bias' or 'rule hits' actually contain, whether results are cached or time-sensitive, or whether it is a live open-world lookup.
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-loaded with the synonym relationship that an agent most needs and followed by the use condition. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is close to redundant with the tool name and could have carried the output semantics instead.
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?
Complexity is low (no params, no nested objects), and the description does state the return values, which is the main missing structured information since there is no output schema. However, terms like 'bias' and 'rule hits' are left undefined and there is no indication of freshness or sourcing, which for an openWorldHint tool is a meaningful omission.
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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste space inventing parameter guidance.
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?
Names the resource (current directional bias) and its outputs (GO / WAIT / CLOSE with bias and rule hits), and explicitly identifies itself as a synonym of get_decision, which lets an agent place it relative to a sibling. It stops short of a clean verb+resource statement like 'retrieves the current directional bias', so the purpose is clear but framed indirectly.
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?
'Call this when you need the current directional bias' is a usage cue but largely restates the tool name. The 'synonym of get_decision' clause is the genuinely useful routing information, since it tells the agent the two are interchangeable, but there is no guidance on when one should be preferred over the other and no exclusions.
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.