Choose the best available free provider for an AI-agent research task based on task relevance and budget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| budget | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| budget | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| results | Yes | ||
| attempts | Yes | ||
| provider | No | ||
| fallback_used | Yes | ||
| requested_provider | No | ||
| zero_out_of_pocket | Yes | ||
| recommended_provider | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"New value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"New value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"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 says it selects a 'free provider' but does not disclose whether the call itself spends budget, reserves a provider, or has any side effects, nor any rate limits or auth requirements.
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 clean sentence with the selection criteria front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the phrase 'best available free provider' stays abstract where one concrete detail would have helped.
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 output schema covers return values, and the tool is low-complexity with two params, but with no annotations the description should at least clarify the relationship to execute_task and the meaning of budget. As written, an agent cannot confidently place this step in the workflow.
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%, so the schema documents neither of the two parameters. The description partially compensates by naming 'task relevance' and 'budget' as the selection inputs, implicitly mapping to the task and budget fields, but gives no format, unit, or default semantics for budget.
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 action (choose the best available free provider) and the resource (AI-agent research task), and frames the selection criteria (relevance and budget). It is inferable but not explicit that this is the pre-execution routing step distinct from the sibling execute_task, so sibling differentiation is weak.
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 execute_task, nor any stated prerequisites or ordering (e.g., call before execute_task). The relationship to its only sibling is left entirely to inference.
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.