Mercado Financeiro BR

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: authentication is a one-time setup that can be permanent or session-based. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful details about token handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It is a bit wordy with multiple clauses but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but remains 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 output schema, the description could mention what the tool returns (e.g., success message or link) but it adequately covers the user's action needed. For an authentication tool, the primary behavior is explained sufficiently.

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 one optional parameter 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully explains its meaning: calling without token returns the login link, calling with token pastes the JWT for session-only login. This adds critical semantic context.

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 authenticates users, with two distinct methods: permanent config via header or session-only by pasting a token. It identifies the tool's specific verb and resource (authenticate) and is 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 clear guidance on when to use each method: recommend permanent config for non-expiring connection, or session-only by pasting token. It explains how to call with or without arguments. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or alternatives 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it details the response structure (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and explains how the output varies based on connection state. This provides a clear mental model 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 extremely concise: two sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately add scenario details. Every word adds value with no fluff.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns under two key scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials). This is sufficient for a simple status-check tool and leaves no critical 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 input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter semantics are needed. Per the scoring rule, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is no ambiguity or missing information.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific details on what is returned in different states (all connected vs. missing credentials). It defines a clear verb-resource relationship without ambiguity.

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

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

The description implies the tool is used to check connection status, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool over siblings like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. There are no alternatives or exclusion conditions mentioned.

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 context beyond annotations: it explains that 'invoke' runs a tool even when not installed and returns connect/checkout links if needed, and that writes require special permissions. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are generic, but the description clarifies the non-destructive yet state-changing nature (e.g., install/uninstall still require auth).

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 comprehensive but overly long and dense, becoming a wall of text. While it front-loads key information about the core flow and important distinctions, it could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of actions. Every sentence adds value, but the structure hampers quick scanning.

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 (13 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema), the description covers the core flow and important behavioral aspects of 'invoke' and 'install'. However, it lacks detail on many parameters and does not describe return values or error conditions, leaving gaps for parameter-dense actions like 'search' and 'describe'.

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% for 13 parameters. The description explains the meaning of 'action', 'mcp_id', 'tool_id', and 'arguments' in the context of the flow, but neglects parameters like 'limit', 'query', 'immediate', 'tier_slug', 'conversation', 'request_name', etc. Without parameter-level detail, the agent cannot understand how to use these inputs correctly.

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 explains its role as the in-platform catalog and execution engine. It specifies that this tool should be used first when a user wants a capability, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_tools' and 'report_bug' by outlining the core flow (search => describe => invoke).

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 context for when to use this tool (first for capability requests, before external registries) and explains the core flow. It differentiates between 'invoke' for occasional use and 'install' for permanent addition, and notes that writes require workspace owner/admin. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus specific siblings beyond the general flow.

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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds default currency context but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or response characteristics.

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 with no wasted words. Key information (crypto quotes, currency default) 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?

Adequate for a simple read-only tool with 2 params and no output schema. But lacks return format, error handling, or details about multiple coin results.

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 has 0% description coverage but description compensates partially by explaining coins array (via examples BTC, ETH) and currency default (BRL). However, lacks format details, valid values, or behavior for multiple coins.

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 it provides cryptocurrency quotes (BTC, ETH) in a chosen currency, with BRL default. Distinguishes from siblings like mercado_quote (general quotes) and mercado_currency (currency conversion) by specifying crypto focus.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools exist but no comparison 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral details beyond purpose. No extra context on rate source, frequency, or limitations.

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, no redundancy, front-loaded with main action and examples.

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 does not explain return values (rate values, date, bid/ask?). Missing context about whether rates are real-time, historical, or source. Inadequate for a production 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?

The only parameter 'pairs' is an array of strings. Description gives format examples (e.g., USD-BRL) but does not specify allowed currency codes or case sensitivity. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 fetches exchange rates for currency pairs, with concrete examples (USD-BRL, EUR-BRL). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like mercado_crypto (crypto) and mercado_quote (stock quotes).

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. The description implies currency exchange context but lacks when-not-to-use or comparison with other 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-documented. The description adds context about operations (search, filter, sort) but no additional behavioral traits beyond the annotation coverage. No 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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It effectively conveys the tool's functionality without unnecessary words. Slightly could be broken into multiple points for clarity, but it is already 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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main features (search, filter, sort) but omits details about the 'limit' parameter and the output format. It provides sufficient context for basic usage but leaves gaps for an agent to infer parameter behavior and expected returns.

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. The description mentions search, filter by type/sector, and sorting, which maps to parameters 'search', 'type', 'sector', 'sort_by', and 'sort_order'. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide details about valid values for each parameter (e.g., enum options). Adds some meaning but not fully comprehensive.

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 lists/screens B3 assets (stocks, FIIs, BDRs) with search, filter by type/sector, and sorting. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like mercado_quote (for quotes) and mercado_search_ticker (for ticker search).

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 tells when to use the tool (listing/screening B3 assets) and implies its context relative to other tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling list provides alternatives. Clear enough for an AI agent to decide.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the minor context of historical series availability but does not disclose additional traits like error handling or data freshness. The description 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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured but is not verbose. The front-loading is adequate.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is insufficient. It omits crucial details about date parameters and country, and does not describe return values or usage restrictions. A more comprehensive description is needed.

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 must compensate by explaining parameters. It only covers the 'indicator' enum and mentions 'historical' generically, but fails to explain 'start', 'end', and 'country' parameters (format, optionality, default behavior). This is a significant gap.

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 Brazilian macroeconomic indicators (prime_rate/Selic and inflation/IPCA) with an optional historical series. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like mercado_crypto or mercado_quote, which focus on other asset classes.

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 Brazilian macro data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mercado_list or mercado_quote. No exclusion criteria or context are 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: it can handle up to 20 tickers per call, supports fundamental modules, dividends, and price history. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting 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 a single sentence that conveys the core functionality and options. It is concise but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability. Every part is meaningful, 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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main features but misses details on return format and two parameters ('range', 'interval'). It is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for full agent autonomy, especially without 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully compensate. It explains 'tickers' (batch), 'modules' (listed examples), 'dividends' (boolean), and 'fundamental' (boolean). However, 'range' and 'interval' are not explained, leaving a gap. The description adds value but not fully exhaustive.

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 fetches quotes (cotações) for B3 stocks, FIIs, and BDRs in batch (up to 20 tickers). It specifies the resource (B3 assets) and action (quote), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like mercado_crypto or mercado_currency which cover other markets.

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 mentions batch usage with a limit of 20 tickers, implying when to use this tool (multiple tickers). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide comparisons to alternatives like mercado_search_ticker or mercado_list, leaving the decision to the agent without clear 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 and idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds 'Discovery rápido' but no further behavioral traits (e.g., case sensitivity, partial match behavior, or result count).

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 with no wasted words, fitting the tool's simplicity. It is concise but could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing accepted inputs).

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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits details like expected output format (single ticker or list?) and error handling, leaving gaps for the 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description clarifies that query is a snippet of name/code, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it lacks format constraints or examples, leaving ambiguity.

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 resolves a ticker from a name/code snippet, with a 'quick discovery' emphasis. It distinguishes from siblings like mercado_quote or mercado_list by focusing on ticker resolution rather than data retrieval or listing.

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 use for quick ticker discovery but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context 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?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive. Description adds that conversation array aids reproduction but no further behavioral details like response or processing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no superfluous 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?

Lacks explanation of return values or what happens after reporting, but given simplicity and annotations, it is minimally adequate.

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 only adds meaning to the conversation parameter, leaving context and message undefined beyond their 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?

The description explicitly states the tool reports bugs, missing features, or feedback, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which are market or authentication related.

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 explicit guidance to include the conversation array for reproduction, but does not mention when not to use or alternatives, though not critical given sibling context.

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 non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns version info, which is consistent and sufficient.

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?

One concise sentence with no fluff or repetition, perfectly efficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 version query tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, making it 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?

No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 ('Show') and a clear resource (MCP platform and adapter versions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect'.

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 when to use (when versions are needed) and no alternatives are needed due to its unique purpose, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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 the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing exactly what state information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, catalog tool counts), which goes 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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action 'Returns', 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?

For a parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns. It covers the key aspects an agent would need to understand its purpose and output.

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 no parameters and the input schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none is needed, and it explains the output meaning. Baseline for 0 params is 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, and catalog tool counts. It uses specific verbs and resources, making it distinct from sibling tools like 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 implies usage for checking toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. Given the siblings, the context is somewhat clear, but explicit guidance is missing.

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