Free sample: real output computed while an objection window was open. Same shape as oppositions_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": "oppositions_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 add real context: the sample is free, the data is real rather than synthetic, and it was computed during an open objection window. However, it does not say whether repeated calls return a stable snapshot, whether an open window is required at call time, or what happens when none exists.
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 with no filler, and the key qualifier ('free sample') is front-loaded. The second sentence does more useful work than the first by anchoring the return shape to a named sibling.
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 tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by pointing at oppositions_lookup for the return shape. The remaining gap is that an agent without knowledge of the sibling's output still learns nothing about the actual fields returned, and no term ('objection window') is defined.
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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully covered.
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 states the tool returns a free sample of real output gathered while an objection window was open, and explicitly ties its shape to oppositions_lookup. The verb is implicit (it never says 'returns' or 'fetches'), but the resource and its relationship to the sibling are unambiguous enough to distinguish it from oppositions_lookup.
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' implies this is the low-cost way to inspect the output shape before using oppositions_lookup, but that routing is left implicit. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling or when it is unusable (e.g., no open objection window).
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.