Portal da Transparência: Auxílio Emergencial

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, but no readOnly/destructive hints. The description discloses that calling with no args returns a link, and that pasting a token enables session-only login. It does not mention that this is an authentication operation that may invalidate previous sessions or that it stores tokens in config (permanent). However, the description does add value beyond annotations by explaining the two modes and the permanent vs session distinction. Slight deduction because the description doesn't disclose if the tool has side effects on server config or if it overwrites existing credentials.

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 long but packed with essential information. It front-loads the purpose and provides step-by-step guidance. The structure could be improved with clearer separation between the two methods, but it's not bloated; every sentence serves a purpose. It's slightly verbose for a simple tool, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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

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

The tool is simple (zero required params, no output schema), and the description covers the key aspects: purpose, usage modes, and parameter behavior. It lacks details about error scenarios (e.g., invalid token) and what the response looks like, but with no output schema and a single optional param, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly. Given the complexity, this is well covered.

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 only one optional parameter 'token' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description effectively explains the token parameter: what it is (JWT), when to provide it (after the user pastes), and the alternative of no args. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema. Slight deduction because it doesn't specify the token format or what constitutes a valid token beyond 'jwt'.

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: authenticate the user for MCP.AI IDE agents, with two methods (adding a header to config or pasting a token). It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' and 'portal_transparencia_auxilio_consultar' by focusing on browser login and token handling. Minor deduction for not specifying the exact outcome or what 'authenticate' returns, but the purpose 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?

Excellent guidance: explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (when the user needs to log in for IDE agents), provides two clear usage scenarios (permanent via config header, session-only by pasting token), and explains how to call it (with token or no args). It even gives context about the user experience ('log in in the browser, copy the access token'). This far exceeds typical guideline quality.

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 value beyond the readonly/idempotent hints by disclosing conditional behaviors: it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, otherwise it includes connect_url and per-install URLs. This contextualizes the tool's dynamic output. However, it doesn't detail any rate limits or error conditions beyond missing credentials.

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 long, directly states the primary function in the first sentence, and uses the second to describe conditional outcomes. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition. It is a model of brevity and clarity.

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 no parameters, a clear read-only status role, and no output schema, the description covers the main return fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) and the key scenarios. It stops short of explaining what 'per-install URLs' contains or how 'pending' is populated, but these are minor omissions for a simple status endpoint.

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 coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter-related details because there are none to document, so this baseline is appropriate.

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 'Returns connection status and URLs,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' (which initiates flows) and 'toolkit_info' (general info) by focusing on status and URL retrieval. The scenarios provided (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) further clarify the tool's exact 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 implies usage (checking connection state) and gives context about return values, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusionary guidance. The usage is implied through the status-returning behavior rather than explicitly stated.

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

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke runs tools one-off without installing, install makes an MCP permanent, and paid/credentialed tools return checkout/connect links. These details add significant context and do not contradict 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 long but densely packed with useful guidance and is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It is structured around the core flow, invoke behavior, install-vs-invoke tradeoff, permissions, and prompt library. It could benefit from more explicit separation, but each sentence contributes substantive 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 complex multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the main flows, auth requirements, billing edge cases, and the prompt library. However, it omits details on some actions like resume, immediate, tier_slug, and return-value expectations, so it is not fully 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 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only explains a few high-level concepts like action, tool_id, and prompt_slug. Many parameters (immediate, tier_slug, conversation, prompt_vars, cancel_reason, report_context, request_details, etc.) are left unexplained, leaving a clear gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool 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 mcp.ai marketplace: the catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to run them. It names the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the in-platform catalog/runner rather than auth, connection, or version 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for one-off use, use install only to make an MCP permanent, use list_tools to see what is callable now, and use request_mcp when nothing fits. It also explains when invoke returns connect or checkout links and to retry after the user completes the action.

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?

As anotações indicam que a ferramenta é somente leitura, idempotente e não destrutiva, o que está alinhado com a descrição que fala de 'consulta'. A descrição adiciona contexto sobre hospedagem na plataforma, necessidade de crédito pré-pago e aspectos de LGPD, o que é útil. No entanto, não detalha o que acontece após a consulta (formato de retorno, limites, etc.), mas não contradiz as anotações.

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 descrição é concisa (três frases), mas a estrutura é um pouco corrida e mistura informações importantes (custos, LGPD, fonte) sem organização clara. Ainda assim, é razoavelmente curta e direta, sem verborragia.

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?

A ferramenta é uma consulta com 5 parâmetros e sem schema de saída. A descrição menciona custos, fonte oficial e responsabilidade LGPD, o que cobre alguns aspectos de contexto. No entanto, não explica o processo de pagamento/crédito pré-pago em detalhes, nem o formato de retorno, e a falta de informações sobre parâmetros reduz a completude.

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?

A descrição não fornece informações sobre os parâmetros, e a cobertura do schema é 0%. Os nomes dos parâmetros (cpf, nis, data_inicio, data_fim, municipio) são relativamente autoexplicativos, mas não há detalhes sobre formatos esperados (ex.: máscara de CPF, formato de data). A descrição não compensa a falta de documentação do 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?

A descrição informa que a ferramenta consulta informações sobre o Auxílio Emergencial em fonte oficial (Portal da Transparência), o que é claro e específico. No entanto, não distingue explicitamente de outras ferramentas (não há irmãs diretas no contexto), mas o verbo 'consultar' e o recurso 'Auxílio Emergencial' são suficientes para compreender o propósito.

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?

A descrição menciona que é necessário pagar por consulta com crédito pré-pago e que o usuário deve ter finalidade legítima (LGPD), o que dá alguma orientação de uso. Porém, não há indicação de quando usar esta ferramenta em vez de outras, nem exclusões (quando não usar). A informação de custo e credenciais é útil, mas poderia ser mais explícito sobre cenários de uso.

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 annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true, but the description adds little about actual behavior. It does not mention what happens after reporting (e.g., confirmation, side effects) or any limitations. The description's only behavioral hint is the reproduction detail, which is more of a usage guideline than a transparency disclosure.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. It directly states the action and the required parameter guidance, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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

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

The tool is simple and has no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits any mention of expected outcomes (e.g., confirmation, tracking ID) or error conditions. Given the simplicity, the description is adequate but not fully 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?

The description clarifies the 'conversation' parameter by specifying it should be an array of recent messages, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. However, it does not elaborate on 'context' or 'message' beyond their obvious roles, so coverage is partial.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and identifies the resource (bug/feature/feedback). It also mentions the inclusion of conversation data, which distinguishes it from generic reporting tools.

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

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

The description provides a specific instruction ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since no sibling tools are listed, the guidance is adequate but not explicit about usage 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as output format or side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 wasted words. It is perfectly front-loaded and 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?

For a no-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is fully adequate. It states exactly what the tool does without needing additional 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter explanation because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 verb ('Show') and the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like toolkit_info, which presumably covers broader information.

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 when version info is needed but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. For a trivial no-param tool this is acceptable, but the lack of any guidance keeps it from a higher score.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which the description aligns with. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exact content of the returned state (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts), which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradiction found.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'returns' and lists all key output categories concisely. Every word adds value, making it highly 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 has no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description is sufficient. It fully specifies the informational content, and the readiness hints are already covered by annotations. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter-specific description is needed. The baseline of 4 applies as the description effectively communicates what the tool returns without needing to explain 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 returns current toolkit state, listing specific categories: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like `authenticate`, `connect`, and `marketplace`, avoiding 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 implicitly conveys this is a read-only informational tool, best used for checking the toolkit's current state. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the usage context is clear given sibling names like `connect` and `authenticate` suggest actions versus this info retrieval. A brief note on when to use it (e.g., before connecting or troubleshooting) would have earned a 5.

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