pitchiq-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: outcome-priced, re-checks availability, sends confirmation email, pushes to Google Calendar, and is payable with x402 tokens. This gives a solid understanding of side effects and constraints for a write operation.

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, well-structured paragraph of 4 sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently adds pricing, side effects, and prerequisites. No extraneous words; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the primary action, prerequisites, payment model, and key side effects. It does not describe return values, but that is partially mitigated by the clear outcome. A brief note on what the tool returns would make it fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds contextual value beyond the schema (e.g., host_handle from discover_search_podcasts, attendee_email receives confirmation link, duration default 30). This elevates it above baseline 3.

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 ('Book a confirmed guest slot'), the specific resource ('PitchIQ host's PUBLIC booking calendar'), and the style ('Calendly-style'). It distinguishes from all sibling tools, which are search/index/brain/commerce tools, not booking tools.

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 a prerequisite ('Find bookable hosts via discover_search_podcasts') and cost model ('x402-payable; no PAT required'). It implicitly indicates when to use (for confirmed slots) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. Clear, but not exhaustive.

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 discloses the return content (every wiki page's title, slug, summary, ordered hierarchically) and a usage constraint (requires active workspace). It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a zero-parameter read tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 containing all essential information: what the tool returns, when to use it, and a prerequisite. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 is complete for a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. It explains the return value, usage context, and condition (active workspace). Could mention if there are any limits on page count, but not essential for a get-index 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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline score is 4. No parameter information is needed, and the description correctly omits parameter details.

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 it returns the workspace brain index with specific fields (title, slug, one-line summary) in hierarchy order. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search or graph query by offering a full index of all pages, not a filtered or related query.

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 recommends calling at the start of a session to learn what the workspace knows before searching, asking, or creating. Mentions prerequisite of an active workspace, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or compare to 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It details what is returned for each entity type (e.g., forward links, similar pages, CRM mentions). It does not mention side effects, but the tool is inherently read-only.

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 well-structured: a concise first sentence stating the purpose, followed by entity-specific details, and a summary sentence. It is slightly lengthy but clear and front-loaded.

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 complexity (three entity types with different returns), the description is fairly complete. Without an output schema, it explains what is returned for each type. Could mention pagination, but it is 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the parameters (entity_type, entity_id) influence the traversal and results, providing functional 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 clearly states the tool traverses the workspace knowledge graph from a specific entity. It distinguishes behavior for each entity type (wiki_page, contact, deal), which sets it apart from sibling tools.

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 says 'Use this to understand relationships and discover connected information,' implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with sibling search tools, lacking 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 carries the full burden. It discloses semantic matching behavior, return fields, and the active workspace requirement. It could add default limit behavior or pagination details, but the core traits are well covered.

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?

Four efficient sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavior, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions return fields. It covers purpose, distinguishing behavior, prerequisites, and return format. Slight gap: no mention of pagination or ordering beyond relevance. Overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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% (query parameter described; limit parameter only has constraints). The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema's existing query description. It adds workspace context but does not compensate for the undocumented limit 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?

The description clearly states it performs semantic search across the active workspace's wiki, distinguishes it from the sibling tool pitchiq_v1_wiki_search_pages by noting it finds pages by meaning rather than exact wording, and specifies the return format (ranked pages with title, slug, summary).

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Prefer this over pitchiq_v1_wiki_search_pages when you don't know the exact wording.' Also states requirement for an active workspace, providing clear when-to-use and prerequisite 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it is 'x402-payable (read class)', indicating a non-destructive read operation. Discloses return fields (USD price, pricing class, network, x402 block). 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 concise sentences that efficiently convey purpose, timing, and return value. No extraneous 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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to construct the payment.

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. Description adds value by explaining the parameter's purpose and providing an example, plus suggesting to call tools/list to see available options, which goes 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'firm x402 price + payment requirements for any Commerce tool'. Distinguishes from siblings by being a pricing tool before committing, while siblings are booking/search operations.

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 says to use 'BEFORE committing' and mentions budgeting purpose. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies it's a prerequisite check. No alternatives listed, but siblings are clearly different domains.

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 discloses the tool is 'x402-payable; no PAT required' and that it returns a list of creators. It does not mention destructive behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool, this is sufficient, earning a 4.

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: first covers purpose and parameters, second covers return fields and payment info. No redundant phrases, ideal for quick parsing. Earns a 5.

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, the description explains return fields. Parameter coverage is high, and the tool's behavior is well-defined. It's nearly complete but could add more on pagination or output format, so a 4.

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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing parameters concisely and stating the return fields. It does not explain each parameter in detail but provides adequate context for the agent, warranting a 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 verb 'Search' and resource 'PitchIQ's global Twitch/YouTube creator index', specifying key filtering criteria. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from similar sibling search tools like pitchiq_v1_brain_search or pitchiq_v1_discover_search_curators, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 for creators covering games/products but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like curator or podcast search. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references are provided, keeping it at a 3.

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 discloses 'x402-payable; no PAT required' and states return fields. This adds value but lacks details on idempotency, rate limits, or destructive behavior.

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 long, front-loading the core function and use case in the first sentence, and providing return info and access requirements in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the search intent, output fields, and access details. It could mention pagination or error handling, but it's largely complete for a 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?

The input schema describes 4 out of 5 parameters (80% coverage). The description summarizes the searchable fields ('by name, tag, language, and audience size') but doesn't exceed what the schema already provides. The 'limit' parameter is mentioned by name but not explained.

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: 'Search PitchIQ's global Steam-curator index by name, tag, language, and audience size'. It specifies the verb (Search), the resource (Steam-curator index), and differentiates from sibling tools like search_creators and search_podcasts.

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 'for an agent marketing a game/product into a niche', implying a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like the creator or podcast search 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. It implies a read-only search operation (no mention of mutations), but it does not explicitly declare read-only behavior, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but acceptable for a simple search tool.

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 concise: two sentences front-loaded with the core purpose and return details. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it easy to scan.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides clear purpose and return fields. It lacks context about pagination (limit parameter default and behavior) but is otherwise adequate for a straightforward 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?

The input schema has 75% coverage for parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it only lists return fields. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Search PitchIQ's podcast directory' with a specific verb (search) and resource (podcast directory). It lists return fields (title, host, listener tier, category, cover image) and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_creators and search_curators by focusing on podcasts.

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 says 'Useful for finding podcasts an agent should pitch the user onto,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, which could strengthen guidance.

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