Conta Simples

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains the difference between permanent and session login, and describes the link generation. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description. It adds context about the token being a JWT and the resulting session 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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second covers permanent method, third covers session method. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It fails to specify the return value when the token is provided (likely a success message or session token), which is a minor gap. Overall, it adequately covers usage.

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 description fully explains the optional 'token' parameter: when provided, it logs in with that JWT for session-only; when omitted, it returns a link for browser login. Since the schema has no descriptions, this adds crucial meaning.

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, specifically for MCP.AI IDE agents, with two distinct methods (permanent config vs session token). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by its unique role.

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 usage instructions: either add token to server config for permanent connection or pass token in the call for session-only login. It also mentions calling with no args to get a link. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools or state when not to use it, which is acceptable given no alternative auth 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable specifics: returns authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, and connect_url when credentials missing. 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action and immediately explains the two main response scenarios. Efficient and clear.

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 parameters and simple output, the description fully covers the tool's behavior. Output schema is absent, but the description adequately describes the key return values for the two main states.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info but none is needed. The return behavior description adds value beyond schema.

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 returns connection status and URLs, differentiating from sibling 'authenticate' by being a status check. It explains two distinct scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials) with specific return values.

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 implicitly indicates use for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. The sibling 'authenticate' provides a contrast, but more explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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 tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the return format (content_base64, content_type, size_bytes) and bulk behavior. No contradictions 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 extremely concise, with three short sentences. The first sentence states purpose and return, the second addresses accounts, the third bulk. No filler, front-loaded, 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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and parameter constraints. It explains the accounts limitation and bulk support. Missing potential details like authentication requirements or size limits, but for a simple download tool, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description carries the burden. It explains accounts (single entry or omit), attachment_id is implied to be the ID (but no format), and attachment_ids is for batch. This adds meaning to all three parameters, though more detail on ID format would strengthen 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?

Description clearly states the tool downloads attachments by ID, supporting PNG/JPEG/PDF formats. It specifies the return fields (content_base64, content_type, size_bytes) and mentions bulk support via attachment_ids. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like contasimples_card or contasimples_user.

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 clear context on when to provide the accounts parameter (single entry or omitted in single-account install) and explains bulk execution via attachment_ids. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, though no sibling is similar.

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 read-only and idempotent, and the description confirms by stating 'Lista'. It adds details about parallel account listing and the prohibition of next_page_start_key when accounts>1, which are not in 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and cover essential details without extra 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?

Covers main usage and special cases like accounts and pagination. Could be improved by describing the return format (list of card objects) given no output schema.

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 description lists all parameters and explains accounts behavior, adding meaning beyond the schema with 0% coverage. However, it does not detail format or constraints for each filter parameter.

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 starts with 'Lista cartões corporativos (crédito)', clearly stating it lists corporate credit cards. This differentiates it from sibling write tools like contasimples_card_write_block.

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 explains optional filters and the accounts parameter with pagination restrictions. It provides clear context for multi-account usage but does not explicitly exclude alternatives.

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 a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent. Description adds that it has bulk support and accounts constraint, but does not detail side effects, error behavior, or idempotency. 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?

Description is short but includes unnecessary markers like '[Flattened action: block]' which may be confusing. Language is in Portuguese, reducing clarity for English-speaking agents. The structure is somewhat disjointed, mixing action description and parameter hints.

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?

No output schema, and description fails to explain return values or error handling. For a mutation tool, important context like auth requirements, idempotency guarantees, or behavior on failure is missing. Sibling tools are listed but not cross-referenced 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates somewhat by noting that 'reason' is optional, accounts accepts only one entry, card_id and card_ids for bulk. However, it does not explain the expected format or constraints for 'reason' or the relationship between card_id and card_ids. Additional detail would be helpful.

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?

Description states it performs mutations on cards (block/unblock), but language is Portuguese, and the mention of both 'block' and 'unblock' alongside a sibling 'contasimples_card_write_unblock' creates ambiguity about the specific action. The flattened action label 'block' partially clarifies, but overall purpose clarity is diminished.

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 some usage context: accounts array limited to one entry, card_id belongs to one company, and bulk support via card_ids. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. the sibling unblock tool, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for use.

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 it's a write mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but no destructive hint. The description adds context about bulk execution via card_ids and scope of card_id to one company. However, it does not disclose what unblocking entails (e.g., reverting a block, state changes).

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 relatively short but poorly structured, mixing Portuguese and English, and jumping between ideas. It could be more concise and logically ordered (e.g., separating block/unblock context, specifying parameters clearly).

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and limited annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, side effects, or valid parameter combinations (e.g., whether reason is relevant for unblock). The bulk support detail is useful but insufficient.

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 compensate but fails to clearly explain each parameter. It mentions 'reason' as optional for block (not clear for unblock), accounts with one entry, and card_ids for bulk. The description mixes block and unblock semantics, leaving ambiguity about which parameters apply to unblock.

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 it handles card mutations including unblock, with a flattened action of 'unblock'. It distinguishes from the sibling contasimples_card_write_block by specifying the action. However, the mention of 'block' in the first sentence could cause confusion, and the purpose is not as crisp as it could be.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions bulk support and a condition about accounts, but does not say when to prefer this tool over, e.g., contasimples_card_write_block or other operations.

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 only adds context about grouping behavior. No contradictions; the description adds some value beyond 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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action. No fluff, but may be slightly too terse for full 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 no output schema, the description fails to mention the return format or any error conditions. It also does not fully explain the grouping behavior, leaving the user with incomplete 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'accounts' parameter groups by account, which adds meaning beyond the schema type, but does not detail format or expected values.

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 financial categories and mentions the optional grouping parameter. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like contasimples_list_accounts, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without any context 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool supports listing by status, grouping by accounts, and batch execution with role_ids, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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 sentences: the first states the main purpose and lists key parameters, the second adds bulk support. It is front-loaded and concise 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 covers the tool's purpose, key parameters, grouping, and bulk features. For a read-only list tool with no output schema, it is reasonably complete, though details on pagination and return format could add further 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 status, role_id, limit, next_page_start_key, accounts, and role_ids, explaining that accounts groups by account and role_ids enable batch execution. However, it does not fully detail each parameter's purpose or constraints.

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 pending invites or history, with parameters like status, role_id, limit, and next_page_start_key. It distinguishes from sibling 'contasimples_invite_write_create' (for creating) by focusing on listing/reading.

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 usage for listing invites, with options for grouping by accounts and bulk support via role_ids. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear and sibling differentiation is implicit.

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 show destructiveHint false, so not destructive, but readOnlyHint false indicates a write operation. The description adds bulk support behavior and notes 'flattened action: create', but does not disclose idempotency, authorization needs, or side effects beyond creation.

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 but includes internal notes like '[Flattened action: create]' which reduces clarity. It mixes Portuguese and English terminology. While not overly verbose, it could be more structured and front-loaded with the key action.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain return values or behavior after creation. It does not. The tool has multiple modes (single invite vs. bulk), but the context around parameter combinations and expected outcomes is lacking.

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 role_id, email, accounts (with '1 entrada'), and role_ids, but does not define their formats or distinguish single vs. bulk usage clearly. For example, 'accounts' is not explained as email or account IDs.

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 'Cria convite' (creates invite) with role_id and email, and mentions bulk support via role_ids. However, the mention of 'accounts' with 1 entry is somewhat confusing and could be clearer. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'contasimples_invite' (likely for listing invites) but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tool 'contasimples_invite' is not referenced, and no when-not-to-use or prerequisites are provided. The description only indicates it performs creation and bulk execution.

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 destructiveHint=false, establishing it as a safe read operation. The description adds context about the output (id, label, apelido de exibição) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that delivers the core purpose and key output fields upfront. Every word serves a purpose, and there is 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?

While the description states the output fields, it omits any explanation of the optional 'accounts' parameter, which is critical for proper usage. With no output schema, the description should provide more detail about the return structure to compensate.

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 includes one optional parameter 'accounts' (array of strings) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's purpose or effect, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use 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 the tool lists Conta Simples connections (companies) linked to the install, specifying the returned fields (id, label, display nickname). It distinguishes itself from sibling contasimples tools which focus on specific entities like cards, users, or statements.

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 does not mention prerequisites, filtering, or scenarios where other tools like contasimples_user or contasimples_card would be more appropriate.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the accounts parameter, but 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and good annotations, the description is nearly complete. Could briefly mention return format, but not essential.

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%, but the description explains the accounts parameter (grouping by account), which adds meaningful semantics 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: listing roles for user invitations, with an optional accounts parameter for grouping by account. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like contasimples_invite.

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 context is implied (for invitations), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives 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 indicate safe, read-only, idempotent operation. Description adds operational rules like client-side keyword filtering, account aggregation restrictions, and pagination prohibition, enhancing understanding beyond 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?

Extremely concise: three sentences with clear front-loading of purpose, followed by bullet-style constraints. 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?

Covers core filtering, aggregation, and pagination behavior but omits explanation of many parameters and does not describe return value. With no output schema, more detail on response would improve completeness.

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 compensates partially by explaining 8 of 18 parameters (dates, amounts, limit, keywords, accounts, next_page_start_key). However, many parameters (status, sorting, category_ids, etc.) remain unexplained, leaving significant gaps.

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 'Extrato bancário (transações)' clearly states it retrieves bank statement transactions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like contasimples_statement_card for credit card statements.

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 constraints on parameter usage (date pairing, amount filter exclusivity, limit range) and aggregation behavior, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or say when not to use.

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 mark as read-only and idempotent. Description adds behavioral details: client-side keyword filtering, parallel accounts aggregation with errors array, and pagination restriction. No contradictions 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?

Concise but dense; mixed Portuguese and English. Clearly front-loads purpose and constraints. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but effectively communicates key points without excessive verbosity.

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?

Lacks output schema and does not describe return values or response structure. For a complex tool with optional aggregations and pagination, this gap may hinder correct invocation. Adequate for basic use 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?

With 0% schema coverage, description compensates fully. Explains date format, window constraint, types example, limit range, keywords as filter, accounts aggregation, and next_page_start_key prohibition. Adds significant meaning beyond parameter names.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves credit card statements (Extrato de cartão de crédito) with specific parameters. Distinguishes from siblings like contasimples_statement_banking and contasimples_card by its focus on credit card statements.

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 constraints: date window ≤ 62 days, start_date/end_date pairing, limit range, and prohibition of next_page_start_key with multiple accounts. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools but gives clear usage 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it returns totals, top categories/top establishments, cash_flow, and meta flags; explains the period limit (62 days); details the effect of include_canceled and keywords; and notes error handling for accounts. No contradictions 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 relatively concise (about 6 lines) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It provides details in a logical flow. Minor room for improvement: could be more structured with bullet points, but overall efficient.

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 7 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, the description covers the aggregate purpose, period limits, optional parameters, error handling, and meta flags. It lacks explicit return format but is reasonably complete for a read-only aggregate tool.

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 explains include_canceled, accounts, and keywords, but does not clarify top_n (beyond default), movement_type (enum values), or start_date/end_date (beyond required). It adds value for about half the parameters but leaves others to inference.

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 returns an aggregated summary of banking and card transactions, avoiding pagination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like contasimples_statement_banking and contasimples_statement_card by offering a one-call aggregate instead of paginated details.

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 context for when to use this tool: for aggregated summary instead of paginating through hundreds of transactions. It specifies a maximum period of 62 days and explains the behavior of include_canceled, accounts, and keywords. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling 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 indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true. The description 'Lista usuários' is consistent with a read operation. It adds the grouping behavior for accounts but 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 one short, front-loaded sentence with parenthetical details. No unnecessary words, efficient.

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 main purpose and accounts grouping, but lacks details on response format, default limits, or pagination beyond next_page_start_key. Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be helpful.

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 adds meaning by explaining 'accounts' groups by account and listing optional parameters. Although it doesn't detail email or limit, the grouping explanation is valuable.

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 users of the company, with optional parameters and grouping by account. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'contasimples_user_write_delete' which is a write operation.

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 explains the optional parameters and the grouping behavior for accounts, providing clear context on how to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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 states this is a delete operation ("Remove usuário" and "DELETE na API"), which is destructive. However, the annotation destructiveHint is set to false, creating a clear contradiction between the description and annotations. This severely undermines trust and transparency.

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 with the core action. However, the line '[Flattened action: delete]' appears redundant and adds no value, and the phrasing could be slightly more streamlined.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain expected outcomes (e.g., success confirmation, error cases). It does not cover what happens on successful deletion or failure, nor does it discuss permissions or side effects. The bulk support mention is helpful but incomplete without error handling details.

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 zero description coverage for parameters. The description adds meaningful context: 'accounts' accepts 1 entry and 'user_ids' enables batched execution. However, the 'user_id' parameter (required) is not explained, leaving ambiguity about its role relative to 'accounts'.

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 removes a user from the company ("Remove usuário da empresa") and mentions the HTTP method DELETE. This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like contasimples_user or contasimples_invite, and the phrase "Aceita `accounts` com 1 entrada" is slightly ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., contasimples_invite for adding users, or contasimples_user for listing). The description only mentions bulk support via user_ids but lacks context for choosing between single and batch deletes.

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 adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it details write operations (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel require admin), explains invoke behavior (runs one-off, returns connect link for credentials or checkout link for payment), and notes that install makes MCP permanent. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent.

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 verbose (~200 words) and includes redundant details (e.g., listing actions that are already in the enum). While well-organized with a clear opening and flow, it could be more concise by removing repetitive statements. The first sentence is strong but overall length reduces efficiency.

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 complex tool with 13 parameters, multiple actions, and no output schema, the description covers core functionality, usage guidelines, and behavioral traits. It explains when invoke returns links and mentions admin requirements. It lacks explicit return formats for some actions but is generally complete given the tool's scope.

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 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the core action flow (action=search, describe, invoke) and linking parameters like query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments to that flow. It also explains actions like subscribe/cancel and report_bug. However, parameters like limit, immediate, conversation, request_name are not explicitly described, leaving some gaps.

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' for discovering and running MCPs/tools. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the primary entry point, with a specific flow: search → describe → invoke. The verb 'use THIS tool FIRST' and the resource 'catalog of every MCP/tool' provide unambiguous purpose.

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 advises when to use the tool ('When the user wants a capability, use THIS tool FIRST') and when not to ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' over 'install'). It contrasts with alternatives like external registries and explains the roles of different actions (install vs invoke). Full usage context is provided.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It mentions including the 'conversation array' for reproduction, which is a useful detail but not a major behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

Two sentences, no waste. First sentence states purpose, second provides key usage detail (conversation array). Information is front-loaded and crisp.

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 report tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and one parameter. However, it fails to explain the required 'message' parameter or any return behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 only explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction') but leaves 'message' and 'context' undefined. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

Description clearly states 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It specifies the resource (bugs/feedback) and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle accounts, cards, users, etc. The verb 'report' is specific and actionable.

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?

Description explicitly says when to use: for reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback. It does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but sibling tools cover distinct operations, making usage context 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it shows specific version types, which is helpful but not transformative.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, safe operation, annotations cover behavior), the description is sufficient and leaves no gaps.

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 the description need not explain parameter behavior. Schema coverage is complete, and the baseline score of 4 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?

Description clearly specifies the verb 'show' and the resource 'MCP platform and adapter versions'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'toolkit_info' by focusing solely on version information.

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 versus alternatives like 'toolkit_info'. For a direct version check, implicit usage is clear but exclusions are absent.

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, so the behavioral profile is fully disclosed. The description adds context about the returned data (MCPs, connection status, catalog tools) but does not contradict the 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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and specifies the content in a clear, concise manner. No unnecessary 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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description mentions the three key aspects of the return value: installed MCPs, connection status, and catalog tool count. For a read-only state query, this is sufficiently 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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly omits any. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameter-free tool.

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 returns the current toolkit state, specifically listing installed MCPs, their connection status, and the number of catalog tools each exposes. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which 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 implies usage context: use this tool to get an overview of the toolkit's MCPs. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the tool is simple and has no parameters, so alternative guidance is not critical. The context is clear.

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