Search APAC regulatory notices by keyword (EN or ZH), jurisdiction, topic and date. Costs $0.02 USDC on Base via x402.
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": "search_notices"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| topic | No | ||
| jurisdiction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: every call costs $0.02 USDC on Base via x402. That payment requirement materially changes invocation decisions (batching filters, avoiding speculative calls) and is not in any structured field. It does not disclose pagination, default limit, or billing granularity (per call vs. per result).
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, zero waste, with the capability stated first and the cost constraint immediately after so the agent sees price before schema. Nothing is padded or restated from the name.
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 zero-required-parameter paid search with no output schema, the description covers what can be searched and what it costs, which is the minimum viable set. It omits result shape, default limit/pagination, and whether an empty query is legal, leaving real gaps for a tool that charges per call.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does map most params to purpose (q = keyword with EN/ZH language support, jurisdiction, topic, since = date), which is real added value over bare property names, but 'limit' is never mentioned and no format or matching semantics (phrase match, AND/OR across filters) are given.
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+resource (search regulatory notices) and enumerates the searchable dimensions (keyword, jurisdiction, topic, date). It distinguishes itself by implication from the retrieval/digest siblings (get_notice, latest_notices, weekly_brief), but never names them, so an agent must infer the routing itself.
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 word 'Search' plus the filter list implies this is the query-by-criteria tool as opposed to latest_notices or headline, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer get_notice for a known item or notices_digest for a summary.
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.