One provider's full rating breakdown (composite, band, trend, six facets).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| context | No | Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output content but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authorization requirements, or error behaviors. The description is purely descriptive of the result, not the behavior.
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 a single sentence with no redundancy, which is concise. However, it is under-specified, missing essential usage and parameter information. The brevity feels like minimalism rather than well-structured completeness.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It lists components but does not detail them or mention error cases, formatting, or variations. Usage guidance is entirely absent. For a tool with only two parameters, the description is incomplete and leaves key details to guesswork.
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 only 50% (context is described, slug is not). The description does not add any parameter-level meaning. It does not explain that slug identifies the provider or the purpose of context. An agent must infer that slug is the provider identifier, and context is left completely unexplained beyond the 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?
The description explicitly states the tool returns 'One provider's full rating breakdown' and lists key components (composite, band, trend, six facets). This clearly identifies the purpose and distinguishes it from tools like find_ratings (search) and get_rating_history (historical ratings) which serve different functions.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and context, which is insufficient.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by artifact type or resource (find_mcp vs find_openapi vs get_provider vs get_api), but the sheer volume creates some genuinely confusable clusters: apis_io_search vs find_apis vs find_artifacts, and insights_adoption vs insights_dimensions vs find_company_insights. Several readiness-related tools (what_can_i_fix, simulate_fixes, readiness_gates) also share a conceptual boundary, though their descriptions do help.
The dominant patterns (find_*, get_*, cohort_*, compare_*) are consistent and predictable, but the set mixes in irregular names like apis_io_search, tag_group_tags, what_can_i_fix, whats_changed, and resolve. These deviations are readable but break the otherwise regular verb_noun convention.
106 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped server and will impose a heavy selection burden on agents. The server covers a genuinely broad domain (catalog search, ratings, cohorts, agent readiness, lists, exports, feedback), so the count is defensible in scope, but it is still too many to navigate efficiently.
The surface is remarkably complete: search and browse, single-entity detail, comparisons, cohort analytics, agent-readiness assessment, saved searches, list management, feedback/correction flows, and full dataset exports are all covered. There are no obvious dead ends, and even minor operations like re-running saved searches or simulating fixes are present.
