intelligence-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool compares protocols but doesn't describe what the comparison outputs, whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential behavioral context for a tool with zero parameters.

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 sentence that states the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'key dimensions' entails. There's no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.

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 comparison tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the comparison returns, what format the output takes, or how results are structured. The vague 'key dimensions' leaves too much ambiguity about what the tool actually produces.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. However, it doesn't add value beyond what the empty schema already indicates.

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 states the tool's purpose as comparing agent payment protocols, which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource (agent payment protocols) and action (compare), but doesn't clarify what 'key dimensions' means or how the comparison is performed. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_protocol_info or scan_opportunities.

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. There's no mention of when this comparison would be appropriate versus using get_protocol_info for individual protocol details or scan_opportunities for broader scanning. No context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions is provided.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get details,' which suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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's complexity (simple read operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what details are returned, potential error conditions, or usage constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It implies the 'protocol' parameter specifies which protocol to get details for, but it doesn't explain what the enum values (ap2, acp, x402, mpp, ucp) represent or provide examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but lacks depth.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific agent payment protocol'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (compare_protocols, scan_opportunities), which would require mentioning that this tool retrieves details for a single protocol rather than comparing multiple protocols or scanning for opportunities.

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 its siblings (compare_protocols, scan_opportunities). It implies usage when details about a specific protocol are needed, but it doesn't specify exclusions or alternatives, such as using compare_protocols for multi-protocol analysis or scan_opportunities for broader searches.

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. It discloses cost ($0.01 USDC) and accepted payment methods, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on what 'actionable opportunities' means, potential side effects, rate limits, or response format, leaving significant gaps.

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 with two sentences that directly state purpose and cost/payment details. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a tool that involves payment and scanning, the description is incomplete. It misses parameter explanations, behavioral details like what constitutes an 'opportunity', and output expectations, making it inadequate for informed use.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'days' or 'min_score' mean or how they affect the scan. This leaves key semantics unclear 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 action ('Scan') and target ('agent payments ecosystem for actionable opportunities'), providing specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_protocols' or 'get_protocol_info', which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentions cost and accepted payment types, which gives some context for when to use (e.g., when willing to pay). However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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