fresh-feeds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'Free' but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a non-destructive check, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with key information. However, it could be slightly more structured with bullet points or clearer separation of concepts.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it fails to explain what 'both feeds' refers to or the meaning of 'available change-baseline dates,' leaving potential ambiguity.

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 schema coverage is 100% by default. The description provides no additional parameter information, but none is needed due to no parameters. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 checks the freshness/health of both feeds, specifying elements like snapshot ages, counts, and available change-baseline dates. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with registry snapshots or services.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. While siblings are different, the tool's usage context is only implied by its name and description.

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?

Discloses that the tool is paid and returns a full snapshot. Without annotations, the description conveys the essential behavioral trait (cost). However, it does not explain what 'x402' entails or any potential side effects, though the tool is likely 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?

Two efficient sentences. First sentence defines the resource and cost; second sentence provides the alternative. Front-loaded and 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and distinction from a sibling. It describes the return value (x402 payment instructions) but could be more explicit about the structure of the output.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter description is needed. The description adds context about the output (deduped, quality-scored) but that is beyond parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns 'x402 payment instructions for the FULL deduped, quality-scored MCP registry snapshot'. Distinguishes from sibling 'search_mcp_registry' by specifying scope (full vs targeted) and cost (paid vs free).

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 indicates the tool is paid ('PAID (x402)') and directs users to use 'search_mcp_registry (free)' for targeted lookups. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'PAID' and 'cheap', which adds cost awareness. However, it lacks details on idempotency, rate limits, or side effects beyond payment.

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 immediately convey purpose and key traits. No extraneous text; 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?

The description provides essential info (purpose, payment, baseline) but lacks details on output format, pagination, or error behavior. For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, it is adequate but not 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% and the schema already describes the 'since' parameter as a baseline date with reference to 'feeds_status'. The description adds little new meaning for the parameter beyond restating it.

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 returns 'x402 payment instructions for the registry delta' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_registry_highlights' by focusing on changes since a baseline and payment instructions.

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?

Implies usage for 'repeat callers' and references 'feeds_status' for available dates, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_registry_highlights' or mention when not to use it.

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. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, caching, or any side effects. Implies a read operation but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads purpose and key features. No wasted words, efficient communication.

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, so description must explain return structure. It specifies 'top 10 MCP servers' and 'snapshot freshness' but lacks detail on exact fields, data types, or possible errors. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

No parameters exist (0 params), so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since schema covers 100% with empty object.

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 'Top 10 MCP servers by quality score + trending (new arrivals / score risers) + snapshot freshness'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mcp_registry_snapshot (full snapshot) and search_mcp_registry (search).

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 use vs alternatives. The word 'Free' is mentioned but not contextualized as a usage criterion. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use 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 are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states what the tool returns, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, idempotency, potential side effects, or what happens if the feed is empty. The prefix 'PAID' hints at cost, but this is not explicit.

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 sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('PAID (x402)') and succinctly states the output. No wasted words; every part 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?

Although the tool has no parameters, the description lacks details about the returned payment instructions format or structure. With no output schema, the agent has no insight into the response shape, which is insufficient for a tool that likely returns complex data.

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 and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds value by clarifying that the output is payment instructions, which is beyond the empty schema. It provides semantic context for the tool's purpose.

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 returns 'x402 payment instructions for the FULL liveness-probed x402 services feed.' The verb 'returns' and resource 'payment instructions' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_x402_services' (which likely lists services, not payment instructions) and 'get_mcp_registry_snapshot' (a different registry).

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: to get x402 payment instructions for the full feed. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among siblings. The agent must infer from context that this tool is for the full feed, while 'list_x402_services' or others might serve different purposes.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it's a free version limited to 25 results, returns only liveness-probed services, and mentions the paid alternative. Could add more about response format or rate limits, but sufficient for this 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. Essential information is front-loaded: purpose, key constraints, and alternative tool. Every word 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 the simple tool (2 optional params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient information: what it does, its limits, its free nature, and when to use the alternative. No gaps.

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 already covers both parameters (limit with max/min, payable_only with boolean). Description adds context that limit is free up to 25, but does not significantly expand parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists 'x402 services discovery catalog's active edge, liveness-probed' and distinguishes from sibling tool get_x402_services_snapshot (paid, full feed). The verb 'list' with specific resource 'active edge, liveness-probed services' is precise.

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 states it is free and limited to 25 results, and directs users to the paid full feed sibling for unlimited access. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the registry's maintenance, deduplication, quality scoring, refresh frequency, cost (free), and return fields. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the disclosure is good.

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 sentence states the core function and key attributes, second sentence details return and contrasts with sibling. No unnecessary words, 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 (score, status, remotes, packages) and limit. It also explains query behavior and alternative tool. Missing details on error handling or response format, but sufficient for selection.

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%, but the description adds value: it explains that query is case-insensitive substring matched against specific fields and that omitting query returns top servers by quality score. Limit default is stated. This 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches a registry by name/title/description, and highlights unique features like deduped, quality-scored, refreshed every 30 min, free, and up to 25 results. It also distinguishes from sibling tool get_mcp_registry_snapshot which is paid and full corpus.

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 explicitly contrasts this free search (up to 25) with the paid snapshot (full corpus), implying when to use each. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this for simple queries, use snapshot for bulk' but the contrast is clear.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the report is free, preview-grade, uses cached signals, and yields a 0-100 grade. It also mentions the paid alternative but does not detail rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. The signal sources (registry status, endpoint presence, freshness) are listed, which is good.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence serves a clear role: first sentence states what it does, second clarifies the paid alternative and input guidance. No wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema or nested objects, the description is complete. It explains the output (0-100 grade), the signals used, and how to find the parameter value. It also provides a contrast with a sibling tool, covering the key decision points.

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 'server', with a description already present. The tool description adds that the server name should be obtained via search_mcp_registry, which provides additional context beyond the schema, so it adds value.

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 provides a free preview-grade trust report for a registry MCP server, with a transparent 0-100 grade based on cached signals. The verb 'verify' and resource 'MCP server' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'verify_mcp_server_report' (paid).

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (free preview from cached signals) and when not to (use verify_mcp_server_report for the full paid report). It also guides the user to use search_mcp_registry to find the server name, providing clear 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 are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a paid operation but lacks details on side effects (e.g., initiating a payment), output format, or whether authentication/authorization is required. The term 'FULL verification report' is vague without schema or return structure.

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 sentence that packs key information: paid status, resource returned, and scope. It is efficient but slightly dense; could be clearer with structure. Earns a high score for brevity.

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 is a paid operation returning payment instructions, the description omits prerequisites, relationship to verify_mcp_server, expected output (no output schema), and any post-conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 a description for the 'server' parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'for one registry MCP server'. It does not clarify formatting, allowed values, or how to obtain the server name, so little added value.

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 'returns' and the resource 'x402 payment instructions for the FULL verification report', specifying that it is a paid function and includes live endpoint probe and component breakdown. This distinguishes it from siblings like verify_mcp_server, which likely performs the actual verification.

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 implicitly suggests use when payment is needed for a verification report, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this vs alternatives like verify_mcp_server. The 'PAID (x402)' hints at a payment step, but no clear guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to.

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