Bity

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the difference between permanent config-based authentication and session-only token-based authentication, and mentions the non-expiring nature of the config approach. The idempotentHint is consistent with calling with the same token repeatedly.

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 fairly concise for the amount of information conveyed, with each sentence serving a purpose. It is front-loaded with the primary audience and action, but could be slightly streamlined without losing clarity.

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 importance and no output schema, the description covers the main authentication flow and two usage methods. However, it omits error scenarios, response format, and what happens after successful authentication (e.g., access to other tools), leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter as a JWT and clarifying that it is optional (calling with no arguments yields a link). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare type specification.

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 is for authentication, explaining how to log in via browser and obtain an access token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which are authentication-related.

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 explicit guidance on two usage paths: adding the token to config for permanent access or passing it as a parameter for session-only login. It also notes calling with no arguments to get a link, offering clear context for when to use each approach, though it does not explicitly rule out other uses.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, fully describing the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as rate limits or response 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 short and front-loaded, but it is in Portuguese and lacks crucial details. It earns a baseline score for brevity but loses points for missing information.

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 has two parameters and no output schema, yet the description fails to explain the account parameter, return format, or how results are bounded. It is incomplete for production 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain both parameters, but it only mentions 'market' as optional to filter by pair. The 'account' parameter is completely undocumented.

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 returns history of executed orders with an optional market filter. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like bity_open_orders or bity_order_status, which could cause confusion.

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 only implies when to use (to get executed orders) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No comparison with sibling tools is given.

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific context: it returns available and blocked per currency and explains total balance as available + blocked.

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?

Two concise sentences in Portuguese, front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more structured but effectively conveys the core functionality.

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?

While the output behavior is described, the input parameter is unexplained, no examples are given, and there is no output schema. The description is incomplete for a tool with one undocumented parameter.

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 only parameter 'account' is a string with no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain what it represents, leaving the agent unsure how to provide it.

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 it retrieves account balance with available and locked amounts per currency, using examples like BTC and BRL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bity_executed_orders or bity_list_accounts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the accounts are 'conectadas a este install' (connected to this install), providing a useful scoping detail, but does not elaborate on other behaviors.

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 (one line) and front-loaded. However, it could include a brief note on the parameter without losing conciseness.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but fails to document the parameter. It is complete enough for a basic understanding but not fully informative.

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 schema has one parameter 'account' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain this parameter at all, leaving its purpose ambiguous.

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 lists Bity accounts connected to the installation, specifying it returns id and label. The verb 'lista' (lists) and resource 'contas Bity' are distinct from sibling tools like bity_get_balance.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs other bity tools. The description only states what it does without any context for selection.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the behavioral profile. The description adds no new behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, but does not contradict them.

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-loaded with purpose, and no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the main function and one key parameter detail.

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 does not specify return format, pagination, or default behavior (e.g., all accounts vs. a specific account). It is adequate for a simple listing tool but could benefit from more context.

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 description must compensate. It explains 'market' as optional filter by pair, but does not mention the 'account' parameter at all, leaving half of parameters unexplained.

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 it lists open/pending orders of the account, using a specific verb ('lista') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bity_executed_orders' and 'bity_order_status' by implying scope (open orders vs. executed or specific status).

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 suggests use for open orders and optional market filtering, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. However, the context implies differentiation from executed orders and order status tools.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds only 'Público', which hints at no authentication but does not elaborate on rate limits, depth of order book, pagination, or other behavioral aspects. The value added beyond annotations is minimal.

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—two short phrases that immediately convey the core purpose. It is well front-loaded with the key information and contains no extraneous words.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits important details such as the meaning and format of the 'market' and 'account' parameters, the structure of the returned order book, and any limitations (e.g., depth, update frequency). While the tool is simple, the description lacks enough context 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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. However, it only mentions 'de um par' (of a pair) but does not explicitly map to the 'market' parameter or explain the 'account' parameter. The presence of an 'account' parameter in a 'Público' tool is confusing and not clarified. The description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond what parameter names convey.

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 order book (bids/asks) for a trading pair. It uses the Portuguese phrase 'Livro de ofertas (bids/asks) de um par', which directly indicates the resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bity_ticker (price data) and bity_trades (trade history). The addition of 'Público' further clarifies that the data is public.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'Público' implying no authentication, but does not contrast with siblings like bity_ticker or bity_trades, nor does it mention prerequisites or context such as needing to specify a market.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds bulk support behavior, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits.

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: two sentences covering purpose and bulk support. It is front-loaded with the primary function and contains no wasted words.

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 covers the core function and bulk feature, but lacks detail on the return value (no output schema) and does not address error handling or prerequisites. For a simple status-check tool, it is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for order_id (specified as the ID) and order_ids (bulk support), but the account parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving ambiguity.

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: getting the status of a specific order by its ID, and mentions bulk support. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like bity_executed_orders or bity_open_orders, which reduces clarity on when to use this specific tool.

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. It only explains how to use parameters (by ID and bulk) but does not specify contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool is public and does not require balance, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions noted.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key properties (public, no balance). Every word earns its place with no 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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks explanation of the return format (e.g., fields in the ticker) and fails to clarify the 'account' parameter. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should compensate but does not. The sibling tool context and public nature are helpful but incomplete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not. The 'market' parameter is implied as the trading pair (e.g., BTCBRL) from the tool's context, but 'account' is unexplained. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 it is a 24h ticker providing last price, best bid/ask, and volume for a pair. It is specific about the resource (ticker) and includes the public nature. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like bity_orderbook or bity_trades, which limits its distinctiveness.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bity_orderbook for depth, bity_trades for history). It only mentions it is public and requires no balance, but does not explicitly state usage conditions or exclusions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's added value is minimal. It adds that the data is 'recent' and 'public', which is useful but brief. No mention of rate limits, pagination, or return format.

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 sentence, concise and easy to read. However, it could be more informative without increasing length significantly, such as mentioning the parameters or output type.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about usage and return values. It only states the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand 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?

The input schema has two parameters (market and account) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain either parameter; it only vaguely mentions 'pair' which could refer to market. Users cannot understand what 'account' means in this context.

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 indicates the tool retrieves recent public trades for a trading pair, using the Portuguese word 'Negociações recentes' and 'Público'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like orderbook or ticker by focusing on trade history. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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 such as bity_executed_orders or bity_open_orders. It only mentions 'public', implying no authentication needed, but no explicit comparisons or context for selection.

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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the two possible response states (authenticated vs missing credentials), which goes beyond the hints.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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 covers both scenarios and key fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). Reasonably complete for a simple status check tool, though response format details are implicit.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero params is 4; description adds no param info but is not needed.

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 returns connection status and URLs, with specific scenarios (all providers connected vs credentials missing). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'authenticate', which likely performs authentication actions.

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 use for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses critical behavioral details: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns a connect link for missing credentials or a checkout/top-up link for empty wallet, writes require workspace owner/admin, and the one-off install behind invoke is mentioned. It also explains return behaviors like the shareable prompt link, which is not covered by annotations or output schema.

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 long but rich, and nearly every sentence conveys essential guidance. It is front-loaded with the core definition, then flows through the action lifecycle and ends with the prompt library. While it could benefit from bullet points, the density is justified by the tool's complexity (14 actions, 23 params). It is verbose but not wasteful.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the entire action flow, permission requirements, error/next-step behaviors (connect/checkout links), and the prompt library sub-feature. It covers edge cases like non-installed MCPs and wallet shortages, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and explains the most important ones: action values (search, describe, install, invoke, list_tools, prompt actions), tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related fields. However, it does not explicitly describe parameters like limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, conversation, or prompt_targets. It adds substantial value for core usage but not exhaustive parameter coverage.

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 is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It specifies the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes this tool from siblings by covering all marketplace actions, including the prompt library. It is far from a tautology and explicitly defines its resource and verbs.

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 when to prefer invoke for single/occasional use vs install for permanent toolkit inclusion, and it contrasts list_tools with 'callable right now' vs search/describe flags. It also gives alternatives: request_mcp for new MCPs, report_bug for feedback, and separates prompt library actions from MCP actions. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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?

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral note that recent messages should be included for reproduction, which is helpful but not extensive. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with one sentence front-loading the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though could potentially be 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?

The description lacks details about return values or side effects, and with no output schema, the agent is left uninformed about what to expect after reporting. Low schema coverage exacerbates this.

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%. The description does not explain individual parameters, only mentioning the conversation array. This adds minimal value beyond the schema structure.

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: to report a bug, missing feature, or feedback. It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource context, but does not differentiate from siblings, though no sibling appears to have similar functionality.

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 gives a usage hint to include the conversation array, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no extra behavioral disclosure. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word is necessary and earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool without output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does. It is complete and sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but baseline for 0 params is 4, and nothing is needed beyond what the schema provides.

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 it shows MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle authentication, market data, etc.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but given the tool's simplicity, the purpose implicitly guides usage. It provides clear context for a version check, lacking only exclusions.

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?

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description additionally specifies what the returned state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools count), which adds context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the included content efficiently. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, informational tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool will provide.

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, so there is nothing to describe. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates its scope (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version and the trading-focused bity_* 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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you need an overview of the toolkit state) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No comparison to show_version or connect is provided, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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