nctr-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'Shows NCTR lock thresholds, multipliers, and perks' and mentions 'current balance to check tier status and progress to next tier,' making the read-only informational nature clear. It also implies behavior when no target_tier is given ('see the full progression path'), which adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence covers the core function, and the second specifies the exact details shown. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description fully explains both usage modes (specific tier or full path) and the kind of information returned (thresholds, multipliers, perks). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional detail.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds a slight bit of meaning ('target_tier' optionality via 'or see the full progression path' and 'current_balance' for tier status), but it does not significantly enrich the parameters beyond what the schema descriptions provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource: 'Crescendo status tier.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the specific information it provides (NCTR lock thresholds, multipliers, perks) and offering two clear modes: checking a specific tier or viewing the full progression path.

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 clearly states two usage contexts: checking requirements for a specific tier or seeing the full progression path. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives, but sibling tools are sufficiently different that no exclusion is necessary. The optional parameters are not explicitly tied to usage scenarios in the description, but the context is reasonably implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and indicates a time-filtered behavior ('currently active'), but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any potential side effects. This is a minimal viable disclosure for a simple zero-param getter.

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, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no wasted words. It is optimally concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero-param read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is retrieved and the program context (NCTR). It would benefit from mentioning return structure, but this is not critical for a straightforward getter.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema confirms no properties. No additional parameter context is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('currently active promotions, limited-time offers, and special earning opportunities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_earning_rates and search_bounties, which focus on ongoing rates and specific bounties.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need currently active promotions or special offers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool 'Shows the multiplier' and notes that 'Higher tiers earn more NCTR per bounty,' which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not elaborate on return format, edge cases, or any potential limitations.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately giving the key behavior. There is no filler or redundant 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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand purpose and usage. It could mention what the output looks like, but the absence is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds context about tier comparison and tier-adjusted calculation, but it does not add significant detail beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('NCTR earning rates for a specific Crescendo status tier, or compare all tiers'). It also differentiates from siblings by focusing on tier-based earning multipliers, which is distinct from tier requirements or bounty search.

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 implies when to use the tool (checking rates for a tier or comparing all tiers) and explains the core behavior. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection among the listed sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what Impact Engines are, but not what the tool actually returns, whether it supports filtering, or whether it has side effects like joining a community.

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 three sentences and front-loads the purpose. The additional context about Impact Engine communities is useful, though slightly verbose for a simple list tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient: the name and first sentence imply a list operation, and the schema covers the optional filter. However, return format and filtering behavior are left implicit.

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 description for the category parameter is 100% complete, listing all possible values. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Discover NCTR Impact Engine communities', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings focused on promotions, requirements, funding, and search.

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 first sentence 'Discover NCTR Impact Engine communities' gives clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous among the sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool generates a link and returns a sign-up URL plus earnings summary, but it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is persistent. It adds some return-value context but lacks deeper behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and return value.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key elements: what it generates, the optional parameter, and what it returns. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing potential caveats like link expiration or authentication, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 100% for the single parameter referral_code, and the schema description already explains its purpose. The description restates that the code is optional and credits the referring member without adding meaningful new information 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 clearly states the tool generates a link for a new member to join NCTR Alliance, with an optional referral code. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on requirements, promotions, rates, funding, and bounties.

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 implies the tool is for creating onboarding links, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of when not to use it or comparisons to other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the operation (search/filter), the returned bounty details, and the notable 360LOCK behavior: 'tokens stay yours after the lock period.' This is useful, non-obvious behavioral context beyond a simple 'returns matching bounties.'

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 the core purpose, then filters, then return details and lock behavior. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 search tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation needs: filters and return fields. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or behavior when no filters are provided, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward filtered search tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the keyword, category, and min/max amount parameters and enumerates category values, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema and omits the repeatable_only parameter entirely. The schema already documents all five parameters adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search and filter available NCTR bounties.' It also lists the exact filters and return fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which target tier requirements, promotions, rates, impact engines, and onboarding links.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a user needs to search or filter NCTR bounties by category, amount, or keyword. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names and the concrete filter examples make the intended usage evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.