DETRAN RS: Guia de Pagamento

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes beyond by explaining that calling with the token sets up a session-only login, while the permanent approach is via config. It also discloses that the token can be pasted and that calling with no args generates a link. There is no contradiction; the description adds useful behavior details about the two login flow variants and the permanence of each, though it doesn't explicitly mention side effects like token storage or session 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 concise and front-loaded with key info: it names the audience, the main action (log in in browser, copy token), and the two usage modes. The sentences are efficient but a bit run-on and could be split for clarity, yet they contain no fluff. It earns a 4 for being compact and informative.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the two possible call patterns (with and without token) and the expected user interaction. It lacks explicit mention of what the tool returns (e.g., a success message) but that's not required given no output schema, and the tool's behavior is well defined for its 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?

The schema has one optional 'token' parameter with no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT string pasted by the user for session-only login, and that omitting the token triggers the link generation. This provides clear semantics beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't give formal type details (e.g., JWT format) beyond the example.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to handle authentication for IDE agents by either providing a browser login link or accepting a token for session-based login. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on the authentication flow, mentioning the 'connect' sibling indirectly via browser-based login, and clarifying the two usage modes.

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 explains when to use this tool and provides detailed instructions: it says to log in in the browser, copy the token, and either add it to the server config for permanent access or call this tool with the token for session-only login. It also clarifies the no-args call to get the link, making the usage clear and complete.

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, which is consistent with the description's status-reporting nature. The description adds value by explaining the conditional behavior (when providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing), which goes beyond the annotations. It discloses that the tool returns different payloads based on connection state, which is useful for the agent to interpret the response.

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, compact and information-dense. The first sentence summarizes the output, and the second explains the behavior when credentials are missing. No wasted words; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and response. It is well-structured for 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 that this is a status-checking tool with no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description is complete. It explains the key states (connected vs. missing credentials) and what fields to expect. It does not need to describe return formats further because there is no output schema, but the description covers the essential scenarios. The tool is simple enough that no additional context is required.

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 schema is empty with 100% coverage (since there are no properties). The description correctly focuses on the behavior and return values rather than parameters. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description fully compensates by explaining what the output will be in different scenarios, making this dimension a perfect score.

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 connection status and URLs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' (which presumably initiates authentication) and 'marketplace' (which likely lists integrations). It specifies what information is provided (authenticated flag, pending array, connect_url, per-install URLs). However, it could be more explicit about what 'connect_url' is for and how it relates to the authentication flow.

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

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

The description implies usage: call this tool to check connection status, especially to see if all providers are connected or to get URLs for missing credentials. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when you need to initiate connection), but the context with sibling tools suggests it's for status checking, not action. The mention of 'pending[]' and 'authenticated:true' gives clear context for typical usage.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a paid query (prepaid credit), returns non-confidential data, and imposes LGPD responsibilities on the client. This extends beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes necessary legal and cost details in a few sentences. It is not excessively verbose, though some legal disclaimers could arguably be trimmed, but it remains 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 the tool's simplicity (two params, no output schema), the description should at least clarify the expected input format (e.g., plate format, Renavam usefulness) and output nature. It does not explain what the query returns or how to construct a valid request. The legal/payment context is present but technical details are missing, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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 input schema has two parameters (placa, renavam) with no descriptions, and the description provides zero parameter information. It does not explain what 'placa' (license plate) or 'renavam' mean, nor which is optional/required. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill the parameters.

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: 'Guia de Pagamento, consulta em fonte oficial' (Payment Guide, query in official source). It specifies the resource (DETRAN RS payment guide) and the action (query). It is distinct from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), which are generic platform utilities.

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 some usage context (e.g., hosted by the platform, prepaid credit required) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit 'use when' or 'avoid if' guidance, though the tool is unique among siblings.

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 the annotations: writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke works even for uninstalled MCPs and does not bloat the toolkit, and paid/auth-gated tools return connect/checkout links that the user must follow before retry. This complements the openWorldHint and adds operational details the annotations alone do not convey.

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 effectively structured: it opens with the tool's identity, walks through the core flow, highlights the key invoke behavior, distinguishes invoke from install, notes permission requirements, and finishes with the prompt library. Every major section earns its place, though the density and the odd embedded foreign-language word ('pontualmente') keep it from a perfect score.

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 complexity (23 parameters, no output schema, many actions), the description covers a remarkable amount: the full search/describe/invoke pipeline, credential and payment handling, install-vs-invoke semantics, owner/admin requirements, and prompt library behavior. It falls short of 5 by omitting the 'resume' action, exact parameter requirements for each action, and return-shape details, but it is still a rich, decision-useful description.

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 and 23 parameters, the description carries a heavy burden. It explains the meaning of action, mcp_id, tool_id, and prompt-related flows (search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt), but it does not describe many parameters such as arguments format, limit, immediate, tier_slug, message, cancel_reason, or cancel_comment. It provides useful high-level semantics but leaves important invocation details 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 identifies this as the official mcp.ai marketplace: the catalog of MCPs/tools and the runtime for running them. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining its search→describe→invoke flow and enumerating its distinct action families (search, describe, install, invoke, prompt library). This is more than a vague verb+resource; it establishes the tool's role and scope.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for one-off/occasional usage, use install only to make an MCP permanent, and use request_mcp when nothing fits. It also lays out the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and explains conditions under which invoke returns connect or checkout links, making the decision path clear.

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

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

The description adds one relevant behavioral detail: the conversation array is needed for reproduction. Annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness, so this is modest but useful additional context. There is no contradiction between description and 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the purpose and immediately provides the most important usage instruction. Every word 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?

The description is minimally viable for a simple reporting tool, and the reproduction hint adds practical value. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the required message field and optional context field need more explanation for fully complete guidance.

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 clarifies the conversation parameter as containing recent messages for reproduction, while the required message parameter and the context parameter remain unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as authenticate, marketplace, and show_version.

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 intent for when to use the tool: bug reports, missing features, or general feedback. It also instructs the user to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly compare alternatives, but no sibling tool handles this purpose.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds no extra transparency (e.g., output details or side effects), but since annotations cover it, score aligns with 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?

Single-sentence description, concise and direct. No extraneous words; conveys complete meaning 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?

With no parameters and no output schema specified, the description is fully complete. It explains exactly what the tool does without missing any relevant 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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter details (none needed). Baseline for high coverage is 3, but the simplicity of a parameterless tool merits a slightly higher score for clarity.

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's function: displaying current MCP platform and adapter versions. No ambiguity; the verb 'show' and resource 'versions' are explicit.

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 purpose inherently defines when to use it (when version info is needed). No alternative tools exist in context, so no contrasts required; description fully covers usage intent.

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 are rich (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) and the description is consistent with these — no contradiction. The description adds value beyond annotations by defining the precise contents of the 'state' being reported (MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts). Could theoretically add nuance about data freshness or auth requirements, but for a state-inspection getter with strong annotations, this is solid.

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 front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by a colon-delimited list of distinct, non-redundant state components. Every element in the list earns its place — no fluff, no repetition. Properly scannable for an agent.

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 0-parameter, read-only info tool with comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and what data it exposes. The complexity is low, and the description meets that bar completely. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately shoulders the burden of explaining return contents, which it does 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the rubric's baseline is 4. With no parameters, there is nothing more the description could meaningfully add; a 0-param read-only getter doesn't need parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the exact scope of state returned (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like `show_version` (specifically version info) and `connect`/`authenticate` (which establish connections). No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 read-only inspection purpose is self-evident, providing clear context for when to use this tool (to inspect current toolkit/connection state). It implicitly contrasts with mutation-style siblings like `connect` and `authenticate`. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., when to choose `show_version` over this), which would be the only reason not to give a 5.

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