PagSeguro

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds context on the two operational modes (link retrieval vs token login) and the distinction between session and permanent authentication, which is valuable 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?

The description is relatively concise but front-loads the audience and context. It covers both main use cases in a clear, structured manner. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall well-organized.

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

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

While the description explains input behavior well, it lacks explicit details about the output format or return value (e.g., what happens after successful token login). No output schema exists, so the description should clarify the response. Also, error cases are not mentioned, leaving some 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 optional 'token' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that it accepts a JWT token from the browser login, and that omitting it returns a login link. This adds essential meaning.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as authenticating the user, with specific instructions for both permanent (config header) and session-based login. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing solely on authentication.

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

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

Provides explicit guidance on when to call with no args (to get login link) and when to call with token (to complete session login). Also suggests the best practice of using config header for permanent access. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives among siblings, they are unrelated, so the guidance 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 already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the exact behavior in different states (all connected vs. missing credentials), providing useful context beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds meaningful 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?

With no output schema, the description explains return values for two states. It could be more comprehensive (e.g., what connect_url looks like, if there are other states), but for a simple status tool, it is fairly 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, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description correctly adds no parameter info, and baseline for 0 params is 4. It does not need to compensate.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns connection status and URLs, and explains the two possible states. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace by focusing on connection 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 when to use: to check connection status. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear. A minor gap for full 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?

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: invoke works for non-installed MCPs, returns connect/checkout links on auth/payment issues, and writes require workspace owner/admin. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by noting writes are possible but permission-gated.

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 well-structured with front-loaded summary and clear logical flow. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Minor conciseness improvements possible, but overall 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?

Given the complexity (13 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema), the description covers the essential flow and major actions well. It lacks detail on some parameters and return behavior, but the use-case context and integration instructions (connect/checkout) are sufficiently complete.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the action enum values and the roles of mcp_id, tool_id, and arguments in the core flow. However, 13 parameters exist and many (like limit, query, message, immediate, tier_slug) lack explanation, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 as 'THE official mcp.ai marketplace' and enumerates its two core functions: discovering MCPs and running them. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the first stop for capability requests.

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 says to use this tool FIRST before any external registry. It outlines a core flow (search → describe → invoke) and contrasts invoke with install, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also references sibling tools like report_bug and request_mcp for specific scenarios.

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 show non-read-only. The description adds that the operation cancels a charge not yet captured and supports bulk execution via charge_ids, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error 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 includes a redundant listing of all actions (get, cancel, refund) before clarifying the flattened action, making it slightly verbose. Key info is front-loaded but could be more concise.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description omits return format, error cases, and behavior of unaccounted parameters (account, amount_cents), leaving significant 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?

With 0% schema coverage, description partially compensates by explaining charge_id (required) and charge_ids (bulk) but fails to mention account and amount_cents (irrelevant for cancel), leaving some parameters 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?

Clearly states it's for the cancel action on charges, specifying the verb 'cancel' and resource 'charge', and distinguishes from get and refund actions listed in the description.

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 indicates when to use cancel (for a charge not yet captured) and contrasts with get and refund, providing clear alternative usage. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites or when not to use.

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

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

Although the description indicates a read operation ('get'), the annotation readOnlyHint is false, which contradicts the expected read-only behavior. The description adds bulk capability info (accepts charge_ids) but fails to address the discrepancy. No other behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, pagination) are disclosed.

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

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

The description is relatively short, but it mixes actions for different tools, making it less focused. The structure front-loads the general charge context but then lists actions, which is inefficient for a get-specific tool. Could be more concise by omitting cancel/refund details.

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 should clarify return values, but it does not. It mentions bulk execution but doesn't describe how the batch response differs from a single get. The tool handles multiple actions conceptually, but the context for get is incomplete.

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 explain parameters. It explains charge_id and mentions charge_ids for bulk, but ignores account and amount_cents. amount_cents is relevant to refund, not get, so its presence is unexplained. The description adds some value 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?

The description clearly states the tool is for getting charge details ('detalhe de UMA cobrança') and specifies the required parameter (charge_id). It distinguishes from cancel and refund actions by naming them as separate actions, and the flattened action 'get' reinforces the 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 lists cancel and refund actions which belong to sibling tools, creating confusion about when to use this tool versus pagseguro_charges_cancel or pagseguro_charges_refund. It does not explicitly state when to use get versus other tools, and the inclusion of irrelevant actions undermines clarity.

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

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

Annotations set destructiveHint=false, yet the description describes a refund operation (destructive). This is a contradiction. The description adds value by mentioning bulk execution via charge_ids, but overall transparency is harmed by the inconsistency 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 moderately sized but somewhat cluttered, mixing multiple actions in a list before clarifying the flattened action. The bulk support line is useful. It could be more streamlined by focusing solely on the refund action.

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

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

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and misleading annotations, the description covers refund behavior and bulk support but lacks details on the account parameter, return values, and error scenarios. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains charge_id (required), amount_cents (optional partial refund), and charge_ids (bulk). However, it omits the account parameter. This adds partial meaning beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for all four 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 states that this tool handles refunds for PagSeguro charges, specifically 'refund: estorna uma cobrança'. It also mentions bulk support. The tool name and flattened action clearly indicate refund, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pagseguro_charges_cancel and pagseguro_charges_get. However, including get and cancel actions in the description may cause minor confusion.

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 lists multiple actions (get, cancel, refund) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus the dedicated sibling tools. It mentions 'Flattened action: refund', implying it's primarily for refund, but the presence of other actions and lack of exclusion criteria weaken 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 are present but basic. The description adds 'Bulk support: accepts checkout_ids' but is unclear if this applies to create. The mixed actions and lack of clarity on behavior beyond annotations reduces transparency.

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

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

Description is verbose and poorly structured, mixing multiple actions in a list format. The flattened action note adds clutter. Not concise for a single-action 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?

Given 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should fully explain parameters and behavior. It partially explains checkout but omits account and details of bulk execution, leaving significant 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?

Schema coverage is 0%. Description mentions 'checkout' object for create but also lists checkout_id and checkout_ids, which may not be used in create. Adds some meaning but with confusion and incomplete coverage.

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 lists multiple actions (create, get, deactivate) for a tool named 'create', causing confusion. While it specifies 'cria um checkout' for create, the inclusion of other actions makes the purpose ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like pagseguro_checkouts_get or pagseguro_checkouts_deactivate. The description actually suggests this tool can perform those actions, which is misleading.

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 only adds 'Bulk support' to annotations, which already indicate non-readOnly and non-idempotent. It omits critical behavioral traits such as reversibility, effects on related resources, or error states, which are needed for a mutation tool.

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 includes irrelevant details about create and get actions, adding noise. The 'Flattened action' line is unnecessary. It could be more focused on deactivation only.

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 lacking output schema and having spare annotations, the description does not cover return values, error handling, or prerequisites. For a tool with 4 parameters and nested objects, this leaves significant 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains 'checkout_id' and 'checkout_ids' for single/bulk deactivation, adding value. However, it does not explain the 'account' parameter or clarify that 'checkout' is for create only, 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 deactivates checkouts, using the verb 'inativa' and specifying 'checkout_id' for single deactivation and 'checkout_ids' for bulk. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create and get by focusing on deactivation.

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 bulk support via 'checkout_ids', providing context for when to use batch execution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives (e.g., cancel, refund).

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 state readOnlyHint=false, contradicting the description which describes a read-only 'get' operation. Also includes deactivate action despite destructiveHint=false. No disclosure of behavioral traits beyond this confusion.

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 mixes multiple actions, uses both Portuguese and English, and is not succinct. It would benefit from focusing solely on the get action.

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

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

No output schema, and description fails to explain return values, pagination, or error handling. Irrelevant content about create and deactivate reduces completeness.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains checkout_id and checkout_ids but omits account and checkout object (the latter is for create, not get). Partial coverage of 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 mentions 'get' action for checkout details, but also includes irrelevant actions (create, deactivate) which confuse the purpose. The core purpose is somewhat clear but diluted.

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 specifies that 'get' requires checkout_id and mentions bulk support with checkout_ids. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create and deactivate, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over list or other gets.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond confirming it is a list operation that returns id and label. No additional traits like authentication needs or error conditions are disclosed.

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 in Portuguese that front-loads the core action and output. Every word is necessary, with 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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly adequate but lacks explanation of the 'account' parameter. Since there is no output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return structure, though it mentions 'id e label'.

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 parameter 'account' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the purpose or usage of this parameter, providing no added meaning beyond 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 states the tool lists PagSeguro tokens (merchant accounts) linked to the install, specifying it returns id and label. The verb 'Lista' and resource 'tokens PagSeguro' make the purpose specific. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, the name and context distinguish it from other tools like pagseguro_orders_list.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when an account parameter is needed or not. The description only states what the tool does, without any when/when-not 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 mark readOnlyHint=false, consistent with creation. The description adds bulk support context but no further behavioral details like idempotency or side effects. With annotations present, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 includes a list of actions (list, get, create) that belong to a broader context, but this tool is only for create, making it confusing and not concise. The flattened action note is redundant.

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 including a nested object and no output schema. The description does not explain required fields for the order object, error handling, idempotency, or return value, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'order' object and bulk parameters (order_ids, reference_ids), but leaves account, order_id, and reference_id undefined. Partial compensation.

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 'create: cria um pedido (passe o objeto 'order' conforme a doc PagSeguro)', which identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pagseguro_orders_get and pagseguro_orders_list.

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 bulk support for batched execution via order_ids and reference_ids, providing some guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use versus not-to-use and does not reference alternative tools for creation.

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 claims this tool performs a get operation (read-only), but the annotation readOnlyHint is false, contradicting the behavior. Additionally, bulk behavior and error handling are not disclosed.

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 cluttered with action lists and parenthetical clarifications. It could be more focused on the get action alone. The bulk support note adds ambiguity.

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 params, no required, no output schema), the description fails to explain return values, bulk execution details, error conditions, and the role of parameters like 'order' and 'account'. Incomplete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It mentions order_id is required (but schema shows no required) and includes irrelevant parameter explanations for list and create actions. The 'order' object parameter is not explained for the get action.

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 lists multiple actions (list, get, create) but specifies get via '[Flattened action: get]'. It states 'detalhe de UM pedido (requer order_id)' but later mentions bulk support with order_ids/reference_ids, creating confusion about whether it handles single or multiple orders.

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 pagseguro_orders_list or pagseguro_orders_create. The description mentions list and create actions but doesn't clarify that those are separate tools. Does not specify prerequisites or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but description claims create action (write) without clarifying that this tool may write. It adds confusion by mixing behaviors, and no details on side effects or permissions beyond what annotations provide.

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

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

Description is not concise; it front-loads with a generic phrase 'Pedidos (orders) no PagSeguro' and then mixes multiple actions. The bulk support note adds value but is buried. Could be streamlined to focus on list only.

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; description fails to explain what the list returns (fields, pagination, ordering). Bulk support is mentioned but not detailed (e.g., limits, format). Given the complexity of 6 parameters and no output schema, description is incomplete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions bulk support via order_ids and reference_ids, but does not clearly map parameters to the list action or explain their formats. The description of 'order' object for create is irrelevant for list.

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 lists multiple actions (list, get, create) under a tool named 'pagseguro_orders_list', which is confusing. The core purpose of listing is mentioned but diluted by irrelevant actions. Sibling tools exist for get and create, making this unclear.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Mentions 'list' action may require reference_id, but no explicit when-not or comparison with sibling tools like pagseguro_orders_get or pagseguro_orders_create.

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. The description adds context about the key's purpose (encrypt card) and a default parameter value, which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth needs are disclosed.

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 a fragment, extremely concise, and front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy.

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

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

For a simple, read-only tool with good annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete: it does not explain the 'account' parameter or the return format (e.g., key structure). Lacks output schema details.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'type' parameter (default 'card') but provides no explanation for the 'account' parameter. Thus, only partial parameter semantics are conveyed.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns the merchant's public key for encrypting card data, specifying a default type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pagseguro_charges_get or pagseguro_checkouts_create, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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 fetching the public key before encryption via the default type hint, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are 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?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the conversation array aids reproduction, but no further behavioral details (e.g., whether a confirmation is returned, system 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loads the purpose and then a key usage note. Every sentence is necessary.

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 covers the core purpose and a key usage detail. It could mention the outcome (e.g., creates a support ticket) but is sufficient for a simple feedback 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the purpose of the 'conversation' parameter (for reproduction) and implies 'message' is the bug report, but does not address 'context.' Partial coverage; baseline adjustment for 3 params is 3.

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 specifies the tool's action: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from all sibling tools which deal with authentication, marketplace, PagSeguro, and version 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 advises to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' giving context for effective use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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. The description adds the specific information shown (platform and adapter versions) but does not go significantly beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action.

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

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

Given no parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it could be slightly improved by hinting at the return format (e.g., returns JSON). Minor gap.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for zero parameters 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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'show' and the resource 'versions' are specific. It distinguishes itself 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?

No explicit guidance on when or when not to use the tool. However, given its simplicity (no parameters, idempotent), the need for guidelines is minimal. It is adequate for a straightforward informational 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing safe, read-only behavior. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, catalog counts), 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?

The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's output. It is concise with no unnecessary words.

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

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

For a parameterless info tool with rich annotations, the description adequately specifies the return content. It could be slightly more detailed about the output structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the purpose.

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 with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description need not add any parameter semantics.

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 identifies the resource 'toolkit state' with concrete details (installed MCPs, connection status, catalog tool counts). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are pagseguro operations or authentication.

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 is for retrieving toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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