Free sample: real output for SIREN 910759158 as of 2026-11-09, while a claim window was open. Same shape as creances_lookup.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "creances_example"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: the call is free and the payload is a frozen snapshot tied to a specific SIREN and date, with the caveat that the claim window was open at that moment. It does not state whether the output is stable/cached long-term, whether any auth or quota applies, or that the data must not be treated as current.
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 short sentences, both front-loaded with the decisive facts (free, fixed sample) before the cross-reference to the sibling. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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-parameter sample tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, fixed inputs, snapshot timing, and delegates the return shape to creances_lookup. The only shortfall is that the response shape is only pointed at indirectly rather than summarized, which matters slightly given the absence of an output schema.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention of the fixed SIREN and date usefully confirms to the agent that no input is accepted and the call cannot be re-targeted.
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?
"Free sample: real output for SIREN 910759158 as of 2026-11-09" states exactly what the tool returns — a fixed, zero-input sample record — and distinguishes it from the sibling by scope rather than by wording. It stops short of naming it explicitly as the no-cost preview alternative to creances_lookup, but the resource and nature of the output are unambiguous.
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?
"Free sample" plus "Same shape as creances_lookup" implies the intended use: preview the response shape without incurring the cost of a real lookup. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over creances_lookup or when it would be the wrong choice, so the guidance 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.