resolve_carrier(fleet, slot) → the canonical Card URL. Validates the slot against the fleet's real range; the Card itself is the source of truth — fetch it to confirm the Carrier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot | Yes | Four-digit slot number, e.g. 0001 | |
| fleet | Yes | Fleet key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it validates the slot against the fleet's real range and mentions the card as source of truth. However, it lacks details on error handling, side effects, or authentication requirements, and no annotations are provided.
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 concise, using a single sentence with functional notation. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose but could be slightly more 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 output schema, the description should clarify the return format and error scenarios. It states 'canonical Card URL' but does not specify format or behavior on invalid input, leaving gaps for an agent.
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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond the notation (fleet, slot) and the output mapping, so it meets the baseline without adding significant new meaning.
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 resolves a carrier card URL given fleet and slot, using a clear functional notation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_carriers or get_carrier_doctrine by focusing on URL resolution.
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 context (validating slot, fetching card for truth) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like find_carriers or get_carrier_doctrine.
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.
find_carriers and resolve_jurisdiction both take member codes and return routing or residency endpoint information, making their boundaries unclear. list_fleets and get_fleet_stats also overlap by both publishing live agent counts and fleet-level headline numbers.
Most tools follow a consistent get_/list_/resolve_ + noun pattern, which makes the set easy to scan. how_to_transact breaks the verb convention, and get_carrier_doctrine is less operational in tone, but these are minor deviations.
Ten tools is well-scoped for a read-only fleet discovery, residency, and routing server. Each tool maps to a distinct operational concern such as routing, fleet listing, jurisdiction lookup, or transaction guidance.
The server covers fleet discovery, carrier resolution, jurisdiction lookup, and transaction guidance, but it lacks a tool to fetch an individual carrier's detailed record or card content directly. There is also no carrier-level list or search beyond member-code lookup, which is a notable gap for a Carrier Class Fleet server.