Risco de Crédito PJ

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it explains the effect of permanent vs. session-only login, and that calling with 'token' authenticates while calling with no args returns a link. This is useful behavioral insight. The annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description complements rather than contradicts 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 three sentences long and covers all essential points without excessive verbosity. It is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the two operational modes. Each sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly tighter.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers both authentication paths (permanent via config, session via token), explains the parameter, and provides the no-args behavior. No critical information is missing for the agent to use it 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?

The schema only defines 'token' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT, that it's optional, and that omitting it yields a login link. This gives the agent complete understanding of the parameter's meaning and usage.

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 defines the tool's purpose: authenticating a user to the MCP server for IDE agents. It uses specific actions ('log in', 'copy the access token', 'add', 'paste') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on token-based authentication flow. The purpose is unmistakable even without the tool name.

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 explicit usage scenarios: adding the token to the server config for permanent connection, or pasting it for session-only login. It also explains how to call the tool (with token or with no args). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'connect', so it falls short of a 5.

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 meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the specific return values for two different states: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, and connect_url with per-install URLs when credentials are missing. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. Minor gap: does not address partial connection scenarios in detail.

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 the primary action, and every sentence provides useful information. No redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the essential two-state behavior and key return fields. It could be slightly more explicit about partial connection states, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the low complexity.

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, and the input schema has no properties. The description needs to explain no inputs are required, and it does so implicitly by describing only outputs. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication. The conditional details further clarify its 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to check connection status and retrieve URLs when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the implied usage is evident from the state-based behavior. Lacks explicit exclusion of 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds non-redundant context about prepaid credit payment, no credentials required, and LGPD compliance responsibilities, which are useful for the agent.

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 compact paragraph that covers purpose, access, and legal notes without excessive verbosity. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information, though some details could be tightened.

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 a simple read-only query, and the description covers core function and access model. However, it omits explanation of the 'completo' parameter and does not describe the output format, which is significant given there is 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly explains CNPJ as the company identifier. The 'completo' boolean parameter is not described at all, leaving its meaning and effect unclear.

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 provides a 'credit risk indicator for a company from CNPJ' and 'consults credit information in bureaus and official bases'. This is specific and unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from the unrelated sibling 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?

It gives context for use ('for safer analyses') and specifies a legal basis requirement under LGPD, indicating when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention 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?

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: invoke works even without installation, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment gaps, writes require workspace owner/admin, and search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. This adds significant context beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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 dense, single paragraph that is front-loaded with purpose and core flow, and every sentence carries useful information. However, it lacks any formatting (bullets, sections) that would improve scannability, and its length may reduce quick comprehension.

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 high complexity (23 params, multiple actions, no output schema, no param descriptions), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the main flow, edge cases (auth, payment, admin roles), the prompt library, and the distinction between permanent install and one-off invoke, making it 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 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'action' enum values in detail (search, describe, install, invoke, etc.) and the meaning of tool_id, mcp_id, and prompt_vars. However, many parameters such as limit, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, and cancel_reason remain undefined, leaving gaps in full parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool is the official mcp.ai marketplace, covering catalog discovery and execution. It outlines a clear core flow (search → describe → invoke) and defines its scope including capability requests and a prompt library, distinguishing it from sibling tools like toolkit_info.

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 provides an explicit decision tree: use search for discovery, describe for details, invoke for one-off runs, install only for permanent use, and list_tools for currently callable tools. It also gives clear guidance on when to use invoke vs install and how to handle credentials/payment via returned connect/checkout links.

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 convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the conversation array is needed for reproduction, but it does not disclose what happens after submission, whether confirmation is returned, or any output behavior. 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 sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and includes the most important usage instruction. Every word contributes value; no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 annotations provide safety context, so the description is adequate for basic use. However, with no output schema and incomplete parameter coverage (context unmentioned), an agent may not understand the full input contract or what to expect after invoking the 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of the conversation parameter (for reproduction) but gives no guidance on the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context' parameter. This leaves two of three parameters essentially undocumented in prose.

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 ('Report') and enumerates the exact resource types (bug, missing feature, feedback), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly differs from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version, and the instruction to include conversation for reproduction adds helpful specificity.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: to report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. It gives a concrete usage instruction (include conversation array) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions; however, no sibling tool overlaps in purpose, so the context is sufficiently 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it shows 'current' versions, implying a snapshot, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output format or latency. This meets a baseline level of transparency 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 a single, concise sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the action ('Show') and clearly states the subject ('current MCP platform and adapter versions').

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 parameters, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is complete. It fully informs the agent of what the tool does without needing further elaboration.

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, and the baseline for such cases is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior because there are none; the schema is fully covered by having no properties.

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 function with a specific verb ('show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, credit consultation, and report_bug, which serve different purposes.

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 is provided. However, for a simple version-check tool, the usage is implied and obvious; the description does not mention alternatives 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, which is acceptable for a simple read-only operation but does not exceed the annotation baseline.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists specific details. It contains no filler or repetition, making it highly concise and effective.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts). This is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function without additional documentation.

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, and the description does not need to explain any. The schema is empty, so the description's silence on parameters is entirely appropriate, earning the baseline score of 4.

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, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes it distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report 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 implies this tool should be used when one needs an overview of the toolkit's installed MCPs and their connectivity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance or comparison with siblings such as show_version.

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