get_daily_briefOnce-per-day brief: regime, dot counts, top 10 coins by dot strength, BTC/ETH/SOL flows. Paid: $0.02 USDC on Base, paid in-band via x402 MCP (@x402/mcp; _meta "x402/payment"). Also at GET https://micro-saas-agent.onrender.com/api/brief.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pass | No | Optional GW8 day pass token (from buy_day_pass / POST /api/pass/day); skips per-call payment |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / passAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional GW8 day pass token (from buy_day_pass / POST /api/pass/day); skips per-call payment",
+ "maxLength": 80,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral detail: once-per-day cadence, $0.02 USDC on Base, in-band payment via x402 MCP referenced in _meta "x402/payment". It does not cover payment-failure behavior or what the paid call returns on error, keeping it short of a 5.
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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and contents, followed by the essential payment and alternate-access facts. No filler.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone — it compensates by listing the brief's contents and the payment mechanics. Only the return shape/format and error behavior are unaddressed.
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 100% (the single optional 'pass' param is fully documented in the schema as a GW8 day pass that skips per-call payment), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameter.
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 and resource (once-per-day brief) and enumerates its contents — regime, dot counts, top 10 coins by dot strength, BTC/ETH/SOL flows — so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly name which siblings (get_regime, get_flows, get_band_dots) it supersedes, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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?
Mentions an alternate access path (GET .../api/brief) and the payment cost, implying usage context, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this aggregate brief over the individual regime/flow/dot tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.