trust_score_methodologyHow the HomeClip Trust Score is computed, its exact data sources, and what it is NOT (never Yelp/Angi/HomeAdvisor/etc.). Use this to describe or cite the score accurately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds value by stating the tool's output is a methodology explanation, not a dynamic score. It also clarifies negative context (what it is not). No contradictions.
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, front-loading the core purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 adequately covers purpose, usage, and exclusions. It lacks explicit mention of output format (e.g., returns a textual explanation), but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, it is nearly 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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description has no burden to explain parameters. It still adds meaning by summarizing the tool's content.
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 the computation details and data sources of the HomeClip Trust Score, and explicitly distinguishes it from external review sites. It specifies a concrete verb-resource: 'describe or cite the score accurately.'
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 to use this tool when describing or citing the score, and clarifies what it is NOT (never Yelp/Angi/HomeAdvisor). It could be improved by mentioning alternatives (e.g., use get_pro for a specific pro's score).
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: get_pro for individual details, list_association_members and list_associations for association data, search_pros for searching, trust_score_methodology for explanation, and verify_pro for checking verification. No overlaps.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_pro, list_association_members, list_associations, search_pros, verify_pro), but 'trust_score_methodology' is a noun phrase instead of a verb, causing slight inconsistency.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for the domain of contractor verification and lookup. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too few nor excessive.
The tools cover core operations: finding pros, getting details, checking verification, exploring associations, and understanding scoring. Minor gaps like bulk listing without a city query or detailed reviews exist, but overall coverage is solid.