Free, no wallet. Every case title in the archive, tagged with the trap it illustrates. Titles only, no bodies. Read this to see what the paid archive actually contains before deciding it is worth a dollar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| theme | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly delivers: it discloses that access is free, requires no wallet, returns titles only, and covers the full archive. It does not describe whether 'theme' filters results or whether output is paginated, but the existing output schema reduces the need to explain return shape.
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, all information-dense and front-loaded with the key access trait 'Free, no wallet.' No repetition or 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?
For a simple listing tool with an output schema, the description covers cost, access, scope, and decision context well. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented 'theme' parameter, which prevents the definition from being fully self-sufficient.
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?
The schema has one optional parameter, 'theme', with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The phrase 'tagged with the trap it illustrates' weakly hints that theme might filter by trap, but this is not explicit, leaving an agent to guess the parameter's meaning and valid values.
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 states what the tool provides: every case title in the archive, tagged with the trap it illustrates, with bodies excluded. It distinguishes itself from a paid archive and from fuller siblings by emphasizing 'Titles only, no bodies' and 'Free, no wallet.'
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 description gives explicit context for when to use this tool: before deciding whether the paid archive is worth a dollar. It does not name alternative sibling tools or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
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 have clearly distinct jobs: discovery (catalog, contents, sample), retrieval (archive, search, research), and analysis (precheck, audit, brief). The only real overlap is intentional—precheck is a subset of audit—and archive/search/sample differ in scope and selection.
All tool names are single lowercase words, which gives the set a consistent, predictable feel. They do not follow a verb_noun pattern, and some are nouns while others read as verbs, but the uniform style prevents confusion.
Nine tools is well-scoped for an archive-plus-analysis server. Each tool has a distinct role, and the count supports free discovery, paid access, and specialized risk-analysis features without feeling padded.
The surface covers the core journey well: browse contents, sample free cases, search by symptom, purchase full access, and run pre-flight or audit-style checks. A minor gap is the lack of a per-case purchase or tag-browsing tool, but the full archive makes those workarounds unnecessary.