Find duplicate or easily confused tool names after Unicode, case and separator normalization. FREE during validation. No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed. Supply your task in input. Existing source and input limits apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes | ||
| conflicts | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.",
- "minimum": 0,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / requestIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / descriptionPrevious value: -"Explicit maximum new debit; 0 means recovery only."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / maximumRemoved value: -999999999999Input schema / properties / requestId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Persist the ID returned by agent_utilities_prepare. Reuse after uncertainty."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / requestId / patternRemoved value: -"^\\d{13}_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{16,80}$"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "input",
- "requestId",
- "maxPriceMicroUsd"
-]New value: +[
+ "input"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that no key/credits/wallet are required (auth context) and that limits apply, but it never explains what 'easily confused' means operationally or how results are shaped.
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?
Four short sentences, but two of them ('FREE during validation' / 'No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed') restate the same cost point, and the core purpose is buried ahead of this filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, with a nested required parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description omits what the agent must actually supply, leaving a real gap for this tool's only input.
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 0% for a nested object parameter, so the description must carry the load — and 'Supply your task in input' is tautological and slightly misleading (input is a names array, not a task). The required nested 'names' string array is left entirely unexplained.
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 ('Find'), resource ('tool names'), and mechanism ('after Unicode, case and separator normalization'), which precisely defines what counts as a conflict. No sibling tool overlaps this domain, so differentiation is unnecessary.
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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions beyond 'Supply your task in input.' The 'FREE during validation' line is about cost, not usage selection, so it doesn't route the agent.
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.