Bybit

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that the token is 'non-expiring' when added to the config, that the session-only login is temporary, and the exact flow of what happens (browser login -> get token -> paste). With annotations declaring idempotentHint=true and no destructive hint, the description's accuracy aligns with these annotations. The only minor gap is not mentioning what happens if the tool is called again after authentication (e.g., does it overwrite the token?).

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary use case. It packs a lot of information into a small space: the target audience, the login flow, the two authentication methods, and the exact syntax for calling the tool. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points), but the prose is clear and every sentence 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?

Given that this is a low-complexity tool (1 optional parameter, no required params, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the two main call patterns and what the user should expect (a link or a login prompt). It could have mentioned error cases (e.g., invalid token, expired session) but for the tool's simplicity, it covers the essential context well. The annotation idempotentHint is sensible since calling this tool multiple times should be fine.

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 is minimal (one optional string parameter 'token' with zero additional description), so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. The description explicitly mentions the token parameter and how to use it: "call with { token: \"<jwt>\" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link." This adds essential semantics about what string is expected (JWT) and the conditional behavior (with/without args). The only loss is that the description doesn't specify the format or constraints of the token beyond being a JWT, but this is adequately compensating for the 0% schema 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's purpose: authenticating an MCP server for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining a token. It specifies the primary use case (authenticating for Cursor, etc.) and explains the two ways to authenticate (permanent via config header, or session-only via token parameter). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'search_tools' by its focus on the authentication flow.

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 clear usage context: it explains when to use this tool (to set up authentication for the server) and how to use it (browser login, then either add a config header or pass the token). It mentions alternatives implicitly by distinguishing between session-only and permanent login methods. However, it could have been more explicit about when NOT to use this tool versus the sibling 'connect' tool.

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 establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that, such as the shape of the returned data (authenticated flag, empty pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs). 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 two concise sentences, both of which earn their place. It front-loads the primary purpose and then explains the meaningful output states 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description provides complete guidance on both normal and missing-credential outcomes. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool will return.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema has full coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description. The description correctly focuses on return values rather than inputs.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: it returns connection status and URLs. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling authenticate tool by detailing the result states rather than describing an authentication action.

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 the tool by explaining the two relevant states: when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the usage scenario clear.

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?

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: invoke works without installation, runs one-off, returns connect links for credentials and checkout links for payment, and requires owner/admin for writes. This adds significant context that annotations (which only mark non-read-only, non-destructive) do not cover. No contradictions found.

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 unusually long but well-structured: it opens with the core identity, then explains the primary flow, highlights key behaviors (one-off invoke, auth/payment), gives permission context, and concludes with the prompt library. Every sentence contributes necessary information given the tool's complexity, though it is dense and could benefit from formatting (e.g., bullets, spacing) for easier parsing.

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 massive scope (14 actions, 23 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the end-to-end workflow, edge cases (credential/payment flows), permission requirements, and the auxiliary prompt-library feature. It even highlights installed status flags. It does not detail return formats, but the lack of an output schema and the breadth of actions make the description arguably sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the core 'action' parameter and its enumerated values, plus implicit meanings of query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related fields. However, it does not explicitly document many parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, etc.) or provide formats for complex ones like 'arguments' and 'conversation'. It adds value but leaves significant gaps given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 this is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace' and covers capability requests, with a core flow of search→describe→invoke. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_tools and report_bug by defining its unique role as the central catalog and execution engine. The purpose is specific and well-scoped despite the tool's breadth.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'; describes the intended flow for search/describe/invoke; and covers when to use each action (list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, prompt actions). It also explains what triggers connect/checkout links and permission requirements for writes.

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 cover idempotency, read-only, and destructive hints. The description adds the instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is helpful context. It does not 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a key usage note. It avoids unnecessary 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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers its purpose and an important usage detail. However, it lacks information about the required message parameter or expected return behavior, though annotations provide some safety 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 the description must compensate. It mentions the conversation array for reproduction but does not explain the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context' parameter, leaving the agent without full parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like search_tools or authenticate.

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?

It states clear use cases (bug, missing feature, feedback) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are sufficiently different, so context is clear.

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?

The description explicitly discloses the main behavioral actions: returning relevance-ordered tools, returning tool schemas, and executing tools by ID. This goes beyond the all-false annotations and is especially useful because 'invoke' implies execution side effects, though it does not discuss risk, auth requirements, or heavier operations.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each phrase adds a distinct action behavior, making it an efficient and useful summary.

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 multi-action tool with seven parameters, no output schema, and unhelpful annotations, the description offers a useful high-level summary but not enough to execute it reliably. Missing pieces include `arguments` format, `min_score` behavior, `force_reindex` side effects, and the meaning of `query` vs `queries`.

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 description coverage at 0%, the description needs to compensate heavily, but it does only explain `action` and partially `tool_id`. Parameters like `query`, `queries`, `arguments`, `min_score`, and `force_reindex` are left unexplained, leaving many execution semantics opaque.

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?

Identifies itself as the 'single entrypoint' for the MCP catalog and clearly describes three concrete actions: search by relevance, describe schemas, and invoke tools by ID. This is a specific action-based description rather than a restatement of the tool name, and it makes the catalog-dispatch role clear.

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 'single entrypoint' framing gives strong contextual guidance, and the action list maps directly to when each mode should be used. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it confidently.

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 safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the content of the output (platform and adapter versions) but discloses nothing beyond that. Given the annotations, the burden is low and the description meets the bar, though it adds minimal context.

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, direct sentence without any filler. It is front-loaded and serves its purpose without redundancy. Perfectly concise for a trivial utility.

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 that this tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It provides the core information the agent needs to invoke the tool for a version check. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, making the schema trivially complete. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate. It correctly omits any parameter details, so the score is appropriate.

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 (show the current MCP platform and adapter versions) with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which handle other functions. The scope is precise.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use the tool versus alternatives. However, because the tool is extremely narrow (no parameters, just a version check), its usage is self-evident. There are no obvious alternatives among the siblings, but the description does not explicitly say 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: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond annotations. This provides useful behavioral context for an informational tool.

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, clear sentence that covers all essential aspects without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then enumerates specifics, making it easy to scan.

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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns. It is a read-only informational tool with clear content. A minor gap is that it does not mention whether the tool might require prior authentication or if it always succeeds, but for such a simple tool, this 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to add. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. A score of 4 is appropriate because the description fully explains what the tool returns, which is the only relevant information.

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 the current toolkit state, enumerating specific details: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and count of catalog tools per MCP. This differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, 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?

The description implies the tool is used to inspect the current toolkit state, but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings. Since it is a read-only informational tool, one could infer it's for checking status, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.

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