US Business Calendar MCP

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the substantive behavioral rule (weekends and US federal holidays are excluded) and that the calendar is US-specific, but nothing about authentication needs, error behavior, or what the response looks like.

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?

One tight sentence with the key exclusion rule front-loaded; the 'PRO' marker is compact. No wasted text, though the tier prefix is arguably noise for an agent.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema tool the purpose is clear, but an agent still lacks the date input format and any confirmation of the return type (presumably an integer count). Those gaps are small but real.

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 only 33% — just access_token is documented. The from and to parameters are bare strings with no format hint, and the description's 'two dates' adds nothing about expected format (ISO-8601 vs. other) or whether ranges are inclusive. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (count) and resource (US business days between two dates) with the defining rule spelled out: weekends and federal holidays excluded. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like next_holidays or irs_deadlines, though the description never names them explicitly.

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 on when to choose this over siblings such as due_date, irs_deadlines, or next_holidays, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The 'PRO' prefix hints at a paid tier but not at any usage condition.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the upstream source (crt.sh), which is useful, but says nothing about authentication requirements despite an access_token parameter, nothing about crt.sh rate limits or timeouts, and nothing about result volume or ordering.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and source and then enumerates returned fields. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 list the returned fields, which is a genuine plus. However, it omits auth prerequisites for access_token and any operational caveats about the crt.sh backend, leaving an agent under-informed for a two-parameter network-backed lookup.

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%: access_token is documented in the schema, but domain is bare. The phrase "for a domain" adds only a minimal hint that the parameter takes a hostname, and access_token is never explained in the description. This roughly fills the uncovered gap but adds little 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 names a specific resource (active TLS certificates for a domain), the data source (Certificate Transparency logs via crt.sh), and the fields returned (issuers, names, validity dates). None of the siblings (domain_age, domain_trust_report, email_domain_check) do this, so it is easily discriminated. It lacks an explicit verb, which keeps it just below 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus domain_trust_report or domain_age, and no exclusions. Nothing explains what "active" means (e.g. not yet expired vs. currently in CT), so the agent must infer the trigger conditions.

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, and it does disclose the data source (RDAP) and the returned fields (registration date, age, registrar, expiry, risk flags). However, it says nothing about behavior for unregistered/expired domains, rate limits, or whether results are cached, which matters for an external-authority lookup.

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 with the cost signal ('FREE') and the resource front-loaded, followed by the returned fields and accepted input. No filler; the only quibble is that 'risk flags' is left unexplained.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned fields and the input formats. The main omission is failure behavior for unknown or invalid domains, which an agent calling this on user-supplied input would want to know.

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 0% for the single required parameter, but the description compensates by stating the accepted input forms: a bare domain or a full URL. That is the key ambiguity an agent would otherwise face, though no format examples or TLD constraints are given.

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 and operation: a domain trust 'quick check' that returns registration date, age, registrar, expiry and RDAP risk flags. The word 'quick' implicitly contrasts with the fuller domain_trust_report sibling, though that contrast is not made explicit.

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?

'quick check' plus 'FREE' hints that this is the lightweight option versus domain_trust_report or cert_history, but the description never names an alternative or states when to prefer it. Usage must be inferred from the label and the size difference.

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 does disclose the external data sources (RDAP, crt.sh) and that risk flags are computed, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It omits error behavior for unregistered/invalid domains, latency or rate-limit characteristics of the third-party lookups, and the fact that an access token may be required.

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?

A single dense line that front-loads the tool's purpose and then lists returned artifacts; nothing is padded. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does a fair job by enumerating the report's contents, so the agent knows roughly what comes back. It stops short on the auth requirement, failure modes for bad domains, and output shape, which matter for a tool that fans out to two external services.

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%: access_token is documented in the schema, but 'domain' has no description. The description's phrase 'domain/URL trust report' only ambiguously hints that full URLs may be accepted by a parameter named 'domain' — it does not resolve the format question or state whether the token is mandatory.

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 (domain/URL trust report) and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: RDAP registration, registrar, status, nameservers, TLS certificates and issuers from crt.sh, plus risk flags. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like domain_age or cert_history, which overlap on the same underlying 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus domain_age, cert_history, or email_domain_check, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the returned-data list.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses business-day versus calendar-day calculation and rolling to the next business day, but it omits important behavior such as the default starting date, holiday handling, authentication expectations, and return format.

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 front-loaded sentence with useful examples and no wasted explanatory prose. The unexplained 'PRO.' prefix is a minor structural blemish.

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 calculation tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the starting-date behavior, holiday/weekend rules beyond the roll, authentication, or result shape.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It implies the meaning of days and business mode, but it does not explain the from parameter, which is critical for calculating the due date, and leaves the access_token parameter to 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 that the tool computes a due date after N business or calendar days, including the next-business-day roll behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling business_days tool, which keeps it from 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?

The description gives implied use cases such as Net 30/60, ACH settlement, and contract notice periods. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of business_days or other date-related siblings, nor does it give 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?

Since no annotations were provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides valuable technical context by specifying that the checks are performed using 'DNS over HTTPS,' which is a significant detail about the operational behavior of the 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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary function and immediately includes technical specifications. Every word contributes to defining the tool's scope.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description is highly complete regarding the tool's function and methodology. It provides the agent with all the necessary information to understand the operation and decide if it's the correct tool for a deliverability task.

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 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description itself provides minimal semantic value, only restating that the input is a 'domain or email address' which is already defined 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?

The description clearly and specifically states the function ('deliverability check') and the resource ('domain or email address'). Crucially, it names the specific methods used (MX records, SPF, DMARC), which highly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `domain_age` or `domain_trust_report`.

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 is silent on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the specific checks listed (MX, SPF, DMARC) imply its use case, it doesn't explicitly guide the agent in choosing it over other domain-related reporting siblings.

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 and discloses meaningful behavior: it is free, offline, uses no outside source, and performs specific validation checks. It does not describe return structure or invalid-IBAN behavior, but the core operational traits are 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 efficient statement with the key validation behavior front-loaded. The word 'FREE' is brief and contextually useful, and there is no unnecessary text.

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 one-parameter validator with no output schema, the description covers the validation logic and some returned data. However, it does not explain the shape of the validation result, how invalid IBANs are reported, or accepted input formats, leaving some gaps an agent may need to infer.

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 schema has only one parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It does not specify accepted input formatting, such as whether spaces or lowercase letters are allowed, and adds little beyond the self-evident parameter name 'iban'.

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 specific verb and resource: validate an IBAN. It also names the exact checks performed (country, length, ISO 13616 mod-97 checksum) and extra outputs (bank code, formatted IBAN), making the tool unambiguous and distinct from unrelated siblings.

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 establishes a clear usage context: offline validation that is free and requires no outside source. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but there are no similar sibling alternatives that would require routing 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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the schema – deadlines are adjusted for weekends/holidays and cover multiple tax categories – but omits the return format, whether access_token is mandatory for 'PRO' access, and any failure/rate-limit 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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the resource and scope with no filler, though the leading 'PRO.' token adds ambiguity rather than 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover both behavior and returns. It handles scope and holiday adjustment well but leaves authentication gating, parameter formats, and response shape unaddressed – adequate but with clear gaps for a 3-parameter 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?

Schema coverage is 33%, with only access_token documented in the schema. The description compensates partially: 'N months' maps to months and 'optional fiscal_year_end' conveys optionality, but neither parameter's format, default, or accepted values (e.g., fiscal_year_end as MM-DD vs month name) are 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?

States a specific resource (IRS filing and payment deadlines) with scope (next N months, individual/payroll/corporate, holiday-adjusted) and an optional modifier. An agent can tell it apart from generic sibling tools like next_holidays or business_days, though no explicit sibling routing is given.

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 only implied by the resource name – 'upcoming IRS deadlines' suggests when to call it, but the description never states when to prefer it over siblings like due_date, next_holidays, or business_days, nor any prerequisites beyond the token.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the tool is free and returns observed holiday dates plus a business-day check. However, it omits timezone basis, data freshness, rate limits, and whether any authentication is required, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a no-annotation 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted content. The leading 'FREE' is a useful cost signal, and the return scope is stated immediately.

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 informational tool with no output schema or annotations, the description explains the returned content well: next three federal holidays, observed dates, and today's business-day status. The main missing context is the timezone definition for 'today', but invocation itself requires no additional information.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the scoring rules. There are no parameter semantics to clarify 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 the resource and scope: the next 3 US federal holidays, including observed dates, plus today's business-day status. It is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from a generic holiday tool, though it does not explicitly separate itself from the sibling business_days tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as business_days or irs_deadlines. The description implies its use by stating what it returns, but it provides no conditions, exclusions, or sibling routing.

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