DETRAN PB: Guia de Pagamento

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description complements this by explaining the login flow, the distinction between permanent and session-only connections, and that calling with no arguments returns a link. It adds meaningful context about token handling that is not present in the annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately verbose but every sentence contributes actionable information: context, permanent-config method, and session-only token method. It is reasonably front-loaded and does not contain filler, though the opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' adds context rather than directly aiding invocation.

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 optional-parameter authentication tool, the description covers the key behavioral modes, token format, and the no-argument link retrieval. There is no output schema, but the description gives enough context for an agent to call the tool successfully. Minor omissions like error handling or what exactly 'get the link' returns prevent a perfect score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one required-less string token with no description (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden. It explains that the token should be a JWT pasted by the user and that omitting the argument yields a login link. This adds essential semantic meaning to the parameter beyond the raw 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 identifies the tool's purpose: authenticating a user for MCP.AI by either providing a JWT token or getting a login link. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'connect', but the core action (browser login and token exchange) is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance: for permanent access, add the token as an Authorization header in config; for session-only access, paste the token as a parameter. It also clearly states the two invocation modes (with token or without arguments to get a link), which is strong practical guidance even if it does not 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the returns in different states (authenticated:true vs connect_url), providing context beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds details about edge cases. Zero waste and perfectly 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 simple tool (no params, no output schema), the description fully covers the two key states (all connected vs missing credentials) and what the user gets back. Complete for this complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist, so the description has no parameter info to add. With 0 params, baseline 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate for schema 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's purpose: returning connection status and URLs. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the authentication flow context (connect_url vs per-install URLs), which is distinct from authenticate, 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 gives clear context on when to use it (to check connection status) and what to expect in different states. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but in a sibling set without a similar tool, this is sufficient.

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 declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires prepaid credit, is hosted by the platform, does not need platform credentials, returns non-confidential official data, and places LGPD accountability on the client.

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 purpose ('Guia de Pagamento, consulta em fonte oficial'), followed by operational and legal context. Still, the LGPD/data-controller clause is slightly verbose, though not irrelevant for a data query tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has only two string parameters and read-only annotations, but lacks an output schema. The description comprehensive enough on the source/access model, but it does not describe what a 'guia de pagamento' result contains, nor does it compensate for the entirely undocumented parameter formats.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no descriptions and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain 'renavam' or 'placa', their expected formats, or how they relate to the payment slip query. The parameter names are only weakly self-explanatory for non-Brazilian audiences.

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 resource: 'Guia de Pagamento' from 'DETRAN PB', and the verb: 'consulta'. It also states the scope ('fonte oficial', 'órgãos oficiais brasileiros'), which distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling system tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description conveys contextual usage: official-source query, paid per consultation, no platform credentials needed. However, it gives no explicit 'when to use this vs alternatives' or 'when not to use', so usage guidance remains mostly implied.

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 extensive behavior beyond annotations: it reveals that invoke runs a tool one-off without installing or bloating the tool list, that missing credentials return a connect link, and that empty wallets return a checkout/top-up link with a retry instruction. It also states that writes require workspace owner/admin. These details go far beyond what readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false communicate, and there is 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 long but structured around the core flow (search → describe → invoke), then install/alternatives, then the prompt library. Each sentence adds meaningful guidance, though some redundancy exists (e.g., 'without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list'). Overall it is dense and front-loaded, warranting a high score despite its length.

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, 14 actions, no output schema), the description covers a great deal: permissions, auth/connect links, payment flows, the distinction between permanent install and one-off invoke, and the prompt library. It does not describe return value structures or error handling, but the behavioral context is strong enough to guide an agent in most situations. A slightly higher score would require explicit output/error 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the burden is on the description to explain parameters. It does explain the core action flow (action=search, describe, invoke, tool_id) and some prompt-library concepts, but it does not explain most of the 23 parameters. Params like limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_vars, prompt_targets, and report_context are not mapped to concrete semantics or usage examples. This is a significant gap for a tool with no parameter descriptions in the 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 identifies the tool as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace' and defines its two core roles: cataloging MCPs/tools and running them on demand. It explicitly enumerates the capability requests it handles (e.g., 'find an MCP that does X', 'consulta um CPF') and distinguishes the marketplace from its siblings by positioning it as the in-platform catalog/executor. The verb-resource relationship is clear and distinct.

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 guidance on when to use each action: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and 'list_tools lists what is callable right now'. It also distinguishes search/describe from request_mcp ('requests us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits') and covers subscribe/cancel for billing and report_bug for feedback. These instructions go well beyond simple when-to-use and provide clear alternatives within the 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the conversation array is used for reproduction, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like what happens after submission (e.g., notification, logging). It provides some extra context but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 purpose, and contains no redundancy. Every sentence adds value, 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?

For a simple tool with no output schema and only three parameters, the description is mostly adequate but incomplete. It covers the main purpose and one parameter, but omits explanation for 'context' and does not mention any return value or side effects. Since the tool is straightforward, the gaps are noticeable but not critical.

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 only explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), but does not mention the 'message' or 'context' parameters. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the tool description fails to fully compensate, leaving most parameters semantically under-specified.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and none of the sibling tools relate to reporting issues, so it distinguishes well.

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 a clear usage instruction to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since siblings are unrelated, context is implied rather than stated.

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 context about the exact content shown (platform and adapter versions), providing transparency beyond the structured hints. No side effects are mentioned, but none are expected.

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, tight sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and object, making it immediately understandable.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), and the description sufficiently explains its purpose. Annotations cover safety traits, so there are no gaps that need filling.

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 the schema covers all properties (none). Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't.

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 action (show) and the resource (current MCP platform and adapter versions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 checking version information but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since no sibling tool offers similar functionality, the usage context is minimal but not explicitly stated.

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 destructiveHint=false, and the description adds specific behavioral scope (what data is returned) without contradicting the annotations. It doesn't describe potential edge cases like stale status or connection latency, but for a simple read-only tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action and outcome first, then lists specific details. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description completely covers the return value scope: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. There are no obvious 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 input schema fully covers the interface. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies.

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 ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like connect and 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?

The description clearly implies this tool is for checking installation and connection state, and given the sibling list it is the only state-inspection tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops 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.