detect_contradiction[Ledger product, entitlement: ledger] Detect contradictions across structured claims: the same key asserted with conflicting values flips RED, otherwise GREEN. Deterministic and recomputable. Use agents_contradiction instead when comparing free-text agent prose. 3 free calls/day, then entitlement 'ledger'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claims | Yes | List of claim objects, each with a 'key' (or 'subject') and a 'value'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: deterministic and recomputable behavior, the RED/GREEN verdict semantics, the free-call quota, and the entitlement requirement. It stops short of covering error behavior for malformed claim objects, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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?
Three tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Minor redundancy between the bracketed "[Ledger product, entitlement: ledger]" tag and the closing "then entitlement 'ledger'", which restates the same gating 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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the RED/GREEN verdict format and determinism of results. With only one well-documented parameter and full annotation coverage, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the shape of the returned details behind the verdict is unspecified.
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% and the schema already documents the claims array with key/subject and value fields. The description clarifies the semantics that make the parameter meaningful — contradictions are judged by the same key carrying conflicting values — going slightly beyond the schema's field list.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Detect contradictions across structured claims") plus the exact rule ("same key asserted with conflicting values flips RED, otherwise GREEN"). It also names the sibling it is not (agents_contradiction for free-text prose), so the agent can separate the two without reading schemas.
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?
Gives an explicit routing rule: use this for structured claims, use agents_contradiction instead when comparing free-text agent prose. It also states the quota (3 free calls/day) and the entitlement gate ('ledger'), which tells the agent when the call will fail or need upgrading.
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.