Massachusetts-only evidence-backed snapshot covering selected official state and selected municipal sources for at most seven days, with official evidence links. Not comprehensive coverage of every Massachusetts government source. Costs $0.50 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | ||
| topic | No | ||
| lookback_hours | No | ||
| municipalities | No | ||
| include_routine | No | ||
| max_developments | No | ||
| government_levels | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so reasonably: it reveals the time window (at most seven days), the evidence-link output, the non-comprehensive scope, and the $0.50 USDC cost via x402. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the cost and scoping details are valuable behavioral context.
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 compact—three short sentences—and front-loads the core Massachusetts scope and evidence-backed nature. The caveat about non-comprehensive coverage and cost are both relevant. Slight redundancy ('selected official state and selected municipal') keeps it from being maximally concise.
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?
Given seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It provides cost and a time window but omits what the output looks like beyond 'evidence links' and does not explain any parameter semantics or request handling. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly for a non-trivial request.
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 schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters, such as since, topic, lookback_hours, or municipalities. The only tangential hint is 'at most seven days' relating to lookback, but that is not explicit enough to guide parameter usage. The description fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter documentation.
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 identifies a specific verb-resource ('snapshot') and a narrowly scoped target: Massachusetts-only selected official state and municipal sources with evidence links. The limitation note ('Not comprehensive coverage...') and cost detail further distinguish it from broader siblings like web_search or geographic_search.
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 implies when to use it—when Massachusetts government evidence is needed—and communicates the exclusion of comprehensive coverage. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer routing based on the state scope and evidence requirement.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct search vertical or action, and the specialized searches (company, geographic, news, product) are clearly separated from the generic web_search. The main ambiguity is between web_search and search_and_read, since both return ranked web results, but search_and_read's content-returning behavior and explicit cost difference make the boundary understandable.
Most tools follow a {domain}_search convention (company_search, geographic_search, news_search, product_search, web_search), with read_url, search_and_read, and ma-government-snapshot as readable exceptions. The naming style is not perfectly uniform, but the pattern is clear and predictable overall.
Eight tools is a well-scoped size for a web access gateway, covering general search, vertical searches, and content retrieval without bloat. Each tool has a distinct cost and purpose, and no tool feels redundant enough to remove.
The surface covers the core web-access lifecycle: general search, specialized vertical searches, and direct URL reading, including a combined search-and-read operation. A minor gap is the lack of a batch or multi-URL read, but this is not essential for the stated purpose.