fia-signals-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full safety-disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait—that no payment is made—which is important for an agent to know. But it omits other behaviors such as whether the operation is read-only, what validation occurs, error handling, or response format.

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 with no wasted filler, but it is crammed with domain-specific jargon ('x402', '0.50 USDC bundled risk-pack upsell', 'ACP') that makes it hard to parse. It is concise in length but not optimally structured for clarity.

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 exists, and the description gives only a vague list of what is returned (endpoint, upsell, metadata) without explaining their structure or meaning. An agent lacks sufficient context to know what to expect from the tool's response, making the description incomplete for a moderately complex 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 only 50% (token_addresses has a description, chain has none), and the tool description adds no parameter details whatsoever. The name implies 'batch' refers to multiple addresses, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented chain parameter or explain edge cases.

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 'Return' and identifies the resource as checkout metadata for a paid x402 contract-risk batch, which distinguishes it from execution tools. It also clarifies that no payment is made, helping differentiate it from checkout execution siblings. However, the dense terminology (x402, risk-pack, ACP) slightly clouds immediate comprehension.

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 phrase 'without making a payment' implies this tool is for retrieving metadata before payment, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like contract_risk_preview or token_safety_free_preview, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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 mentions 'live preview' but lacks disclosure of side effects, network calls, auth requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. Behavioral details are minimal.

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 with no filler, front-loaded with 'Free live preview.' However, the brevity is due to lack of substance rather than efficient communication, though it earns points for not wasting words.

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 minimal description, the tool's return value, behavior, and role among siblings are unclear. The description is too thin for an agent to reliably invoke correctly, especially given the suite of related checkout tools.

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 50% (only token_address has a description). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond 'token_address' being an EVM contract address; chain's default is not explained, nor any constraints on token_address format.

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?

Description states 'Free live preview for Fia's paid contract_risk/token-safety checkout path' but does not specify what action is performed (e.g., screening a token contract for risk). It distinguishes as a free preview but the resource is vague, overlapping with sibling token_safety_free_preview.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. The description implies a free preview for a paid service but does not state when to choose this over sibling batch checkout tools like contract_risk_batch_checkout or guarded_swap_execute_dry_run_checkout.

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, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Metadata only' and 'ACP payment/job creation is buyer-controlled', disclosing that the tool is non-mutating and returns only data. It does not describe the exact shape of the packet, but the key side-effect-free behavior is disclosed.

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 primary purpose and a critical qualifier ('Metadata only'). Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 handoff-packet tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient operational context: what it does, when to use it, and its non-mutating nature. It lacks return field details, but given the internal audience, that is an acceptable gap.

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 0%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the 6 parameters. While parameter names and defaults in the schema are self-explanatory (e.g., chain, amount, to_token), the description provides no additional meaning, failing to compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 returns a 'handoff packet' for guarded_swap_execute_dry_run before a Base swap, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling risk checkouts by describing this as a pre-swap packet, though jargon like 'Virtuals ACP direct-buy job-create' is somewhat opaque.

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?

It specifies 'before a Base swap' as the usage context and notes that ACP payment/job creation is buyer-controlled, implying the agent should use this to prepare, not execute. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough given sibling tool names.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is 'Metadata only' and that 'ACP payment/job creation is buyer-controlled', which alerts the agent that no transaction or job creation will occur. The absence of any side effects is effectively disclosed.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, both meaningful. The first states the primary purpose, the second clarifies the non-transactional nature. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description omits any explanation of the parameters and the structure of the 'handoff packet'. Given there is no output schema, the agent is left without critical details. Still, the description adequately establishes the tool's role and safety profile, making it minimally viable.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. While parameters have defaults and are optional, the description provides no guidance on what values to use for 'goal', 'symptom', 'target_buyer', 'current_offer', or 'current_price', leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 ('Return') and a precise noun phrase ('free Virtuals ACP direct-buy job-create handoff packet for offer_angle_ping'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It also explicitly notes 'Metadata only', which distinguishes this from actual checkout tools among the siblings.

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 this tool by stating it is 'free' and 'buyer-controlled', meaning it is for preparing a handoff packet rather than executing a payment. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that no payment is made and it is metadata-only, which is useful. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or any other side effects.

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 that is direct and front-loaded. It communicates the alias relationship, the path, and the metadata-only nature without any wasted words.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not describe what the tool returns. Being an alias, it relies entirely on the referenced token_safety_batch_checkout, which is not defined here, leaving the agent without complete context for expected outputs or behavior.

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 50% (token_addresses has a description, chain does not). The description adds no parameter information at all, so it does not compensate for the missing chain description and provides no extra meaning 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 states it is an alias for token_safety_batch_checkout using a specific buyer-facing path, and clarifies it is metadata-only with no payment. This provides a clear sense of the operation, though it doesn't explicitly describe the underlying risk-checking function.

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?

It mentions the buyer-facing path but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the original token_safety_batch_checkout or other siblings. There are no stated exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that no payment is made, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it omits other details such as whether it makes network calls, requires authentication, has side effects, or how results should be handled. The description is too sparse to provide adequate transparency for a tool that appears to return sensitive metadata.

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, which is concise in length, but its dense jargon ('paid x402 endpoint', '0.50 USDC bundled risk-pack upsell') reduces readability. It does not front-load the core idea clearly; the most important part ('without making a payment') comes at the end. The structure is not poorly organized, but the clarity suffers, making it only adequately concise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and behavior. It lists three items (x402 endpoint, USDC upsell, ACP contract_risk metadata) but does not describe their structure, format, or how they relate to the input parameters. For a batch tool with only two params and no output schema, this is an incomplete picture, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 describes token_addresses (comma-separated, max 5) but leaves chain undocumented. The description does not mention either parameter by name nor add any detail about how they affect the output. With schema coverage at 50%, the description should compensate for the missing chain parameter, but it fails to do so, leaving a significant gap in parameter meaning.

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 verb 'Return' and resource 'metadata' indicate an output-producing tool, but the phrasing 'paid x402 endpoint, 0.50 USDC bundled risk-pack upsell, and ACP contract_risk checkout metadata' is jargon-heavy and unclear. It does distinguish itself from sibling checkout tools by explicitly noting 'without making a payment', which helps differentiate it from the checkout siblings, but the specific purpose remains ambiguous.

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 phrase 'without making a payment' implies this tool is for retrieving checkout metadata without executing payment, giving a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like token_safety_free_preview or pre_trade_risk_batch_checkout, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This is implied rather than explicit.

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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Metadata only' and that payment/job creation is buyer-controlled, which sets clear expectations about side effects. It does not mention authentication, errors, or whether any verification occurs, but the core behavioral note is strong.

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 main purpose, and uses no filler words. Every clause contributes meaning (e.g., 'free', 'before a token swap', 'buyer-controlled'). It is efficient and well-structured.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the timing, and the boundary (metadata-only). It does not detail the packet's contents or error scenarios, but it provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns and its role in a larger flow.

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 50% (only token_address is documented in the schema). The description adds no parameter-level information; it does not mention 'chain' or its default value, nor does it elaborate on token_address beyond the schema. This leaves the 'chain' parameter semantically underspecified.

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 a specific verb ('Return') with a precise resource ('free Virtuals ACP direct-buy job-create handoff packet') and context ('before a token swap'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'token_safety_batch_checkout' by mentioning the ACP direct-buy handoff aspect.

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 explicitly says to use it 'before a token swap', providing a concrete use case. It also clarifies that ACP payment/job creation is buyer-controlled, implying the agent should not expect this tool to execute the swap. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions.

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, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool is 'rate-limited' and 'no-spend', which are important behavioral traits, and indicates it is a 'preview' rather than an execution. However, it leaves key behaviors unexplained, such as what happens when rate limits are exceeded, whether the operation is read-only, and what 'upgrade metadata' means in practice.

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, which is concise and avoids unnecessary length. However, it is dense with unexplained jargon ('x402', 'upgrade metadata') and does not structure information in a way that quickly communicates the tool's basic function. It earns a middle score for brevity but lacks clarity in structure.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide essential context. It is too brief to explain what the preview includes, the nature of the upgrade metadata, or the return format. Sibling tools suggest a family of related operations, but the description does not position this tool within that context, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 coverage is 50% (only token_address is described). The tool description does not mention any parameters or add meaning to the chain field, which remains undocumented in both the schema and description. For a low-coverage schema, the description fails to compensate by explaining parameter roles or constraints.

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 it is a 'token-safety preview' with 'no-spend' and 'rate-limited' characteristics, which gives a general sense of functionality. However, it does not clearly define what the tool returns or how it differs from sibling tools like token_safety_check_acp_checkout or token_safety_batch_checkout. The mention of 'paid /token-safety x402 upgrade metadata' is ambiguous and does not clarify the core purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'preview' implies it is for preliminary checks, but there is no mention of when to choose it over the checkout or batch sibling tools. Users are left to infer usage context.

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