Grant 10 additional free daily calls when a user has reached the free tier limit. Requires an email address. One extension per email, ever. Returns success status and upgrade links. After extension is used: Day Pass ($1.49/24h) or Zambo Pass ($49/mo) for continued access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | User's email address — gets 10 more free calls + an upgrade pitch email |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the grant of 10 calls, uniqueness constraint (one per email), return of success status and upgrade links, and future purchase options. With no annotations, description carries burden and covers key behaviors.
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, front-loaded with main purpose. No redundant words. Each sentence adds essential 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 simple 1-param tool with no output schema, description explains what it does, when to use, and post-use options. Could mention error behavior but overall complete.
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 has 100% coverage with description 'User's email address — gets 10 more free calls + an upgrade pitch email'. Description adds uniqueness constraint 'One extension per email, ever', providing meaningful value beyond 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?
States specific action (grant 10 additional free daily calls) and condition (user reached free tier limit). Verb+resource is clear, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like day_pass_activate.
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?
Explicitly says 'when a user has reached the free tier limit' and 'Requires an email address. One extension per email, ever.' Provides context but no explicit when-not or alternative tools.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but there are several overlapping or redundant tools (e.g., leadsignal vs leadsignal_generate, multiple code audit tools, multiple trading proposal/journal tools, and several 'universal' entry points like zambo_help, zambo_ask, zambo_universal). Descriptions help, but the volume creates ambiguity.
Naming conventions vary across prefixes (zambo_, zambot_, axis_, presence_, trading_, etc.), with some tools using single words (weather, translate) and others using verb_noun patterns. Aliases like leadsignal_generate for leadsignal break consistency. While prefixes provide some grouping, the overall pattern is mixed.
125 tools is excessive for a single MCP server, even if the server aims to be a universal stack. This makes it overwhelming for agents to navigate and increases the likelihood of misselection. Many tools could be split into domain-specific servers.
The tool surface is extraordinarily comprehensive, covering agent identity, cross-layer orchestration, code analysis, content generation, legal scanning, lead generation, trading, on-chain data, and more. Nearly any common agent task is supported with multiple tools, leaving few obvious gaps.