Cluster intents by spec hash. No deposits.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"intent_id": "<intent_id>",
"min_quantity": "<min_quantity>"
},
"name": "open_pool"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent_id | Yes | ||
| min_quantity | Yes |
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 behavioral burden, but it only says no deposits are involved. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, failure modes, or what happens to intents after clustering, leaving the agent to guess.
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 very short with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The 'No deposits' fragment is elliptical but earns its place; the main flaw is under-specification rather than wordiness.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description must cover safety and return semantics, but it mentions neither. The minimal purpose statement is a good start yet insufficient for reliable invocation without guessing.
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 intent_id or min_quantity. The property names carry some inherent meaning, but the description adds nothing beyond those names.
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 gives a concrete operation—cluster intents by spec hash—and adds a useful constraint, 'No deposits.' It is not a tautology, so an agent can infer the tool's core behavior, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like open_checkout.
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 guidance is given on when to choose open_pool over its siblings, and no alternatives are named. 'No deposits' hints at a boundary but does not state a selection rule.
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.