Full trust report for one service: score, delivery/honesty rates, latency, and recent probes with chain-aware payment receipts. Accepts a label ("weatherpro") or full name ("weatherpro.agentindex.eth").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Service label or ENS name | |
| probes | No | How many recent probes to include |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 does disclose the concrete payload (score, delivery/honesty rates, latency, recent probes, chain-aware payment receipts), which is useful, but it says nothing about cost/latency of probing, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool triggers live probes.
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 filler: the report contents come first and the identifier formats second. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is 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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work by naming the fields returned and both accepted identifier forms. What is missing is operational context (whether probes hit the network, cost, or permissions), but for a simple two-parameter read tool it is nearly 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it by giving concrete identifier examples ('weatherpro' label vs 'weatherpro.agentindex.eth' full name), which disambiguates the two accepted formats. It says nothing extra about the probes count parameter, which is already bounded and documented in 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?
States a specific resource (a full trust report for one named service) and enumerates the report contents (score, delivery/honesty rates, latency, probes, payment receipts), which clearly separates it from discovery-oriented siblings like find_service. The retrieval verb is only implied rather than named, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by 'for one service' and by the accepted identifier forms, so an agent can infer this is the single-service lookup vs. find_service. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.