get_hormuzStrait of Hormuz situation card: status, Brent, news matches, transparent method. Call this when you assess Gulf/oil supply risk.
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_hormuz"
}
}| 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 state readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and external-data access are covered. The description adds the payload contents and the notable "transparent method" hint, but says nothing about data freshness, live-vs-cached behavior, or cost despite openWorldHint implying external 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 sentences, no filler. Content list comes first, then the triggering condition, so the agent gets the essentials immediately.
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 input schema burden and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the card's sections. Slight gap: no mention of freshness or result format granularity.
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 description correctly presents it as a parameterless card, so there is no parameter gap to compensate for. 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?
Names the specific resource (Strait of Hormuz situation card) and enumerates its contents: status, Brent, news matches, method. The verb is implicit (retrieve/assess), but the resource is unambiguous and distinguishable from generic market siblings like get_market.
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 assess Gulf/oil supply risk" gives a genuine usage trigger, but there is no exclusion or routing versus plausible overlaps such as get_chokepoints, get_energy_impact, and get_geo_energy_flows. An agent seeing several energy/geography tools must guess which to prefer.
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.