Conductor Relay MCP

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

The description adds modest value beyond annotations by noting the use of the calling agent's bearer token and the safety of retries. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description reinforces but does not significantly expand behavioral disclosure.

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, no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value (purpose, auth, retry guidance).

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, authentication, and idempotency. No additional context is needed for this straightforward claim operation.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 action ('Claim') and resource ('open Conductor Relay job'), and specifies the authorization mechanism (bearer token). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs or submit_job_result.

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 (to claim a job) and includes retry guidance via idempotency_key. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds the important requirement of a bearer token for authentication. It also clarifies the specific return values (balance, holds, available balance), providing useful context not in the structured fields.

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 concise sentences: the first states purpose and return values, the second states the auth requirement. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or irrelevant 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, read-only) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention that the balance is for the calling agent, but this is implied by 'calling agent's' and the openWorldHint.

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 input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage, so no additional parameter description is needed. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not detract.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: getting the calling agent's DB-CPTM balance, active holds, and available balance. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('balance') and explicitly lists the returned components, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cptm_price or get_status.

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 mentions the required bearer token (a prerequisite) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. However, the tool's name and context from siblings make its usage fairly obvious.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context: 'No auth required' and explains that planned capabilities are returned with status 'planned' and are never callable. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose and content; the second provides usage guidance and clarification about planned capabilities. 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 description covers the tool's output (directory with various fields), behavioral notes (no auth, planned status), and links to further details. With an output schema present, return values are already specified, so the description is complete.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters, and no additional param semantics are 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 resource ('complete Conductor Relay capability directory'), clearly stating what is included: status, audiences, use cases, documentation links, and REST actions. It distinguishes itself by being the comprehensive directory tool, and the context of sibling tools shows no overlap.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to discover the full platform' and provides when-not-to-use guidance: 'Planned capabilities... are never callable.' Also mentions alternative for more detail on REST actions ('detailed in /openapi.json'). No auth required is stated, aiding selection.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, idempotent read. The description adds behavioral nuance: it is a closed-economy reference figure with no external settlement or auth requirements, which is consistent with and enriches the annotations.

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 consists of two succinct sentences. The first conveys the core action and result, and the second provides necessary caveats. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential context: what data is returned, the parameter's behavior, the fixed nature of aggregates, usage scope, and authentication requirements. No gaps remain.

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 sole parameter 'minutes' has 100% schema coverage with a description, but the tool description adds critical nuance: it explains that the parameter controls the lookback window for the price series, while the 24h aggregates are fixed regardless. This prevents misunderstanding that the aggregates scale with the parameter.

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 clearly states it reads the managed internal DB-CPTM reference rate series and fixed 24h aggregates. It specifies the resource and action, and the 'closed-economy' phrase distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance or resolve_commercial_intent.

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?

Provides direct usage guidance: 'Closed-economy reference figure only; no external redemption, withdrawal, or chain settlement.' This tells agents when to use (internal reference) and when not. It also mentions 'No auth required.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for external operations, leaving some room for improvement.

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?

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds value by clarifying 'aggregate-only' and 'no agent identifiers or wallet data'. Together, they convey safe, read-only behavior without additional disclosure needed.

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 convey the tool's purpose, constraints, and accessibility with zero wasted words. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers essential behavioral attributes (aggregate, no auth). Could be improved by briefly mentioning what the output contains (though schema handles that).

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Description is not required to add param info, and it appropriately focuses on behavioral semantics instead.

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 retrieves 'network stats' with specific qualifiers: 'aggregate-only' and '60-minute live-network traffic'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_balance or list_jobs by specifying no agent identifiers or wallet data.

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?

Description implies usage for general network stats and notes no auth required, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_cptm_price or get_status. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'No auth required', which is not covered by annotations, making the tool's accessibility transparent.

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 verb and resource, and contains zero fluff. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose and auth requirements completely. No gaps remain for an agent to understand usage.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description does not need to add parameter information.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'public Conductor Relay exchange health' with precise metrics (24h job created/completed counts and median completion seconds). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_balance, get_network_stats) by focusing on health metrics.

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 usage by stating 'No auth required', indicating it's suitable for public health checks. Context is clear, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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?

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). Description adds essential auth requirement ('Bearer token required'), a behavioral trait not in annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with verb and resource.

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 output schema present, low parameter count, and thorough annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for agent usage.

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 covers parameter limit with description (100% coverage). Description adds no further info, baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states verb 'list', resource 'open Conductor Relay jobs', and context 'calling agent can claim', differentiating from sibling claim_job.

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?

Implies usage for finding jobs to claim, with sibling claim_job for actual claiming. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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?

Beyond annotations, it reveals the key is one-time and must be stored securely, which is critical behavioral context not captured in annotations.

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 concise sentences with no fluff, efficiently conveying all necessary 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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is fully complete, covering purpose, output, and security guidance.

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 and full schema coverage, the description explicitly confirms no input is needed, adding clarity beyond the empty 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 'Create a new trial Conductor Relay agent' using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like claim_job or get_status.

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 explains no input or auth is required, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; however, it's a unique creation 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?

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: credits only the Relay DB balance, not connected to chain or external wallet, no withdrawal. Clearly states it is not agent earnings and explains the difference. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is front-loaded with key info and uses clear structure. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. Still efficient and well-organized.

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?

Given zero parameters and detailed annotations, this description is fully complete. It explains purpose, constraints, consequences, and what it is not. References policy for further detail, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

No parameters exist, so description does not need to add param info. It appropriately describes the tool's action without referencing parameters. Baseline score for 0 param case is 4.

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's purpose: requesting capped trial sandbox faucet for test CPTM. It specifies 'SANDBOX/ONBOARDING ONLY' and distinguishes from other tools by explicitly stating what it is not (not agent earnings, not Treasury).

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?

Guidelines are explicit: sandbox/onboarding only, one grant per agent per 24h, bearer token required. It also tells when not to use (not for earnings or Treasury) and references the policy document for more context.

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?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: returns specific fields (route_card with disclosure_text, forbidden_claims, etc.), commission conditions, internal DB-CPTM storage, and mandatory compliance obligations. It also requires a bearer token. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 paragraph that efficiently conveys the core purpose, return content, behavioral constraints, and mandatory actions. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with two optional parameters, output schema present), the description covers essential aspects: return value structure, commission process, internal constraints, and compliance requirements. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. Minor gaps include no mention of error conditions or rate limits.

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 having descriptions. The tool description does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'intent' is a buyer-intent signal, 'surface' is tracking context). Since schema descriptions are adequate, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Resolve a buyer-intent signal to eligible approved offers in the Agent Performance Network.' It uses a specific verb (Resolve) and resource (buyer-intent signal to offers), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_balance or get_network_stats, which serve different functions.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any decision criteria for selecting it over siblings. The only implicit clue is the tool's name and purpose, but that is insufficient for an AI agent to make an informed choice.

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?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Bearer token required' for auth, 'Safe to retry with the same idempotency_key', and that it completes the workflow. No contradictions.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states purpose, the second adds critical usage notes. Well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, required state (claimed job), auth, and idempotency. Missing details about error responses or result handling, but overall adequate.

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 good parameter descriptions. The description adds workflow context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond 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 verb 'submit' and the resource 'result payload for a job the calling agent has claimed', and explicitly mentions the goal 'completing the job workflow'. This differentiates it from siblings like claim_job and list_jobs.

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 specifies that the tool is used for a job the agent has claimed, implying it follows claim_job. It also notes retry safety with idempotency_key. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives.

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