Social Links MCP

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the balance belongs to the account behind the API key and notes that the call is 'Free', which is useful cost context. It does not explain what the response contains, such as a numeric value or units.

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 short and front-loads the key information about what balance is being checked. The fragment 'Free.' is mildly ambiguous and adds little clarity, but there is no wasted text.

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 simple zero-parameter read with read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate. Because there is no output schema, the description could have stated what the tool returns, such as a number or formatted amount. It also does not define the unit of 'credits'.

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 is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies here.

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 clearly states the resource being read: the credit balance tied to the API key. It does not use an explicit verb, and 'Free' is ambiguous, but the purpose is still easy to infer. The sibling tools perform unrelated operations, so the tool is naturally distinct without explicit differentiation.

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 guidance about when to call this tool, when to avoid it, or what alternatives exist. For a simple zero-parameter balance check, the use case is fairly obvious. However, it says nothing about prerequisites, such as whether a valid API key must already be configured.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are partial ("found so far") — but says nothing about whether completion is signalled, whether polling is expected, or what happens to results after completion.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the key qualifier ("started with start_batch") is placed where it is read first. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description should characterize the return shape — progress fields, row format, how completion or failure is indicated. It only hints at this with "progress and the rows found so far," leaving the agent to discover the response structure by calling it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented as "The batch id from start_batch." The description reinforces that provenance but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 the resource (a batch) and what is returned (progress and rows found so far), which is enough to tell it apart from start_batch and the lookup/balance siblings. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.

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 states the prerequisite clearly — the batch must have been created by start_batch, and the id comes from there. It does not say when to call it versus alternatives, how often to poll, or what to do once the batch finishes, so usage is only implied.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description supplies the reason a lookup is not free of side effects: "1 credit when at least one account is found; free otherwise." That cost model plus conditional billing is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the schema, though rate limits and failure/miss behavior are not discussed.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, what it returns, what it costs. The core action is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return payload (creator, accounts with verdict, net confidence 0-1, evidence, websites). Cost and input constraints are covered; only edge-case behavior on a total miss is left implicit, despite the billing rule hinging on it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the url and platforms parameters are already documented, including the enum list and the "leave out for all" default. The description adds only the loose phrase "the other platforms," which does not clarify how platforms interacts with the input URL's own platform. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find a creator's accounts") plus the exact input form (one Instagram, TikTok, YouTube or X profile URL) and the target platforms. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling batch tools, which operate on sets rather than a single URL.

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 phrase "from one ... profile URL" implicitly frames this as the single-lookup path versus start_batch/get_batch, and the schema adds the explicit exclusion of posts, reels, shorts and videos. It stops short of naming the batch siblings as the alternative for multiple creators, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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?

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation, but they say nothing about cost or execution model. The description adds genuinely new behavior: asynchronous background execution, a batch id return, and per-row charging only on a successful match. It does not address whether re-submitting the same URLs creates a duplicate batch, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action, the return/polling contract, and the billing rule, all front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations without added meaning.

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, and the description compensates by stating the return value ('a batch id') and the follow-up tool. Cost model and the 500 limit are covered; the only real gaps are idempotency/deduplication and an explicit pointer to the single-URL alternative.

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?

Schema coverage is 67% and the schema already documents every property, including the profile-URL-only constraint and the platform enum's 'same price either way' note. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond restating the 500 cap already encoded as maxItems; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Queue up to 500 profile URLs to look up in the background') and names the async pattern that distinguishes it from the synchronous sibling lookup_creator. It never names lookup_creator explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than asserted.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use this for bulk, background work, and poll the result with get_batch, which is named. It stops short of saying when to prefer lookup_creator for a single URL, so the alternative routing is left to inference.

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