Weekly bilingual APAC AI & fintech regulation brief. Not legal advice. Costs $0.05 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": "weekly_brief"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| week | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool costs $0.05 USDC on Base via x402 and is not legal advice. These are material facts for invocation that are not encoded in structured fields.
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 zero waste, front-loading the core identity before the disclaimer and payment terms. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information.
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 low-complexity single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers identity, disclaimer, and pricing but omits what the brief contains (sections, language pairing, coverage window) and how the week parameter behaves. An agent can call it but cannot predict the return shape or default time window.
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% and there is one parameter (week) with only a regex pattern in the schema. The description never mentions the week parameter, its format, or whether it is optional/defaultable, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for the sole input.
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 the resource: a weekly bilingual APAC AI & fintech regulation brief. It implies retrieval of a periodic digest, which is distinct from the notice-oriented siblings. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like notices_digest or latest_notices, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling notice/search tools, nor any explanation of the week parameter's role or default behavior. The agent must infer all usage context from the one-line purpose statement.
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.