Compute clinic booking slot utilization, overbooked capacity and remaining appointment slots without patient records. One call costs 0.01 USDC on Base x402; customer-owned provider credentials use X-Provider-Key header where needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slots | Yes | slots; see operation description for units and format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: a 0.01 USDC cost on Base x402 and the X-Provider-Key header for customer-owned provider credentials. It does not describe return format or pagination, but the payment and auth details are meaningful behavioral disclosures.
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 two sentences with no wasted wording. The core computation is front-loaded, followed by the cost and credential details. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.
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 tool is simple, annotations are rich, and the description covers cost, payment network, credential handling, and privacy scope. However, the required 'slots' input lacks units and format despite the schema explicitly deferring to the operation description for those details. That missing input-format guidance is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.
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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-specific detail. The schema's 'slots' description is generic and points to the operation description for units and format, but the operation description does not actually specify those details. The description therefore neither compensates for nor worsens the schema's limited parameter guidance.
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 a specific verb and resource: compute clinic booking slot utilization, overbooked capacity, and remaining appointment slots. It also clarifies the privacy scope by saying it works without patient records. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools such as therapy capacity or visit scheduling tools.
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 for clinic booking capacity analysis, and the phrase 'without patient records' gives a useful scope exclusion. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative tool for related scheduling or capacity tasks.
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.