Portal da Transparência: Bolsa Família

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that a token can be provided for session login or omitted to get a link, and mentions the permanent vs session-only distinction. Annotations already indicate idempotency, and the description aligns with that. It doesn't detail side effects like setting session state, but the flow is adequately transparent.

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 tight—two sentences—but packs essential information: the audience (IDE agents), the login flow, the two authentication methods, and the exact call patterns. No redundant words; front-loaded with the main purpose.

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

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

Given the simple schema (one optional parameter), no output schema, and annotations covering safety hints, the description is completely sufficient. It explains both invocation modes and the alternative permanent setup, leaving no ambiguity for an agent to misuse the 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 description fully compensates for the schema's 0% coverage by explaining the 'token' parameter's purpose (a JWT) and the behavior when it's omitted (returns a link). This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, which only defines 'token' as an optional string.

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: authenticating an IDE agent by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI) and the action (authenticate/login), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace' by focusing on authentication flow.

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

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

Provides explicit usage guidance: it explains two modes (permanent via config header, or session-only via token argument) and states that calling with no args returns a link. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion, but the instructions are clear on when and how to invoke. A minor gap is not referencing sibling tools, but the context 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 establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful state-based behavior detail about authenticated status, pending[], and connect URLs, which is meaningful transparency 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 two clear sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives immediate purpose, and the second sentence adds the conditional output details, making it easy to scan and use.

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 zero-parameter status tool, the description covers the main happy path and the missing-credentials path. It could slightly expand on what exactly pending[] contains, but the overall behavior is sufficiently clear even without an 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no hidden parameter obligations. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation; the no-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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

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

The description opens with a concrete action: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It then specifies conditional behavior with fields like authenticated:true and pending[], making it distinct from the sibling authenticate tool and unambiguous about the tool's 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?

It gives clear context for when the tool is meaningfully used: when all providers are connected it confirms authenticated:true, and when credentials are missing it returns connect_url values. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling authenticate tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: invoke runs one-off without installing, returns a connect link for missing credentials, returns a checkout/top-up link for unpaid tools, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also explains side effects like not bloating the tool list. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is long but well-structured: it front-loads the purpose and core flow, then covers key behaviors, permissions, and the prompt library. Every sentence adds value for a complex multi-action tool, though it could be tightened by trimming redundant phrasing like 'pontualmente (one-off)'.

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 14 actions, 23 params, and no output schema, the description covers the main workflows, auth requirements, edge cases (credentials/payment), and return behaviors (links, profiles). It omits the 'resume' action and some params like immediate/conversation, but overall it is quite complete 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the action enum's core values (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, prompt actions) and how mcp_id/tool_id/arguments fit the flow. However, many params (limit, immediate, conversation, tier_slug, cancel_reason, report_context, request_details) remain unexplained, so it doesn't fully cover all 23 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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It then details the core search→describe→invoke flow and distinguishes the tool from siblings by covering the prompt library and listing distinct actions like list_tools and request_mcp.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits.' It also explains the core flow and when to use search_prompts/get_prompt/publish_prompt, giving clear alternatives for each 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable context: requires prepaid credit, no platform credentials, data is public not secret, and client's LGPD responsibilities. These details go beyond the annotations and enhance understanding of usage constraints.

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 compact three-sentence paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, payment model, data nature, and legal responsibility without redundancy. Every sentence contributes unique 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and only basic safety annotations, the description should explain parameter usage and output expectations. It omits both, offering only general context about the data source and compliance, leaving significant gaps for a query 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It fails to mention any of the five parameters (cpf, nis, data_inicio, data_fim, municipio) or their roles, leaving the agent without guidance on what each field represents.

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: querying official Brazilian Bolsa Família data from the Transparency Portal. It uses a specific verb ('consulta' meaning query) and resource, and easily distinguishes from unrelated sibling tools (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 querying public Bolsa Família information and notes it is an official, non-confidential source with payment requirements, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives, nor any 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?

The annotations provide basic safety hints (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent), but the description does not add further behavioral transparency such as side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. No contradictions exist, but the description adds little beyond the annotations themselves.

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

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

The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences. It gets straight to the point without unnecessary fluff or redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to parse the core purpose quickly.

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

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

The description covers the main purpose and hints at one parameter (conversation), but it omits details about the 'context' and 'message' parameters. Given there is no output schema, the agent cannot infer expected response behavior. The description is not fully complete for a tool with three parameters, though it does provide a reasonable high-level overview.

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 three parameters (context, message, conversation) with no descriptions, and the overall schema coverage is 0%. The description only hints at the 'conversation' parameter by mentioning 'conversation array', but it does not explain the purpose of 'context' or 'message' beyond the general intent. Since the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, parameter semantics are inadequately 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 the tool's purpose: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on user-reported issues, though it could be more precise about the exact scope (e.g., whether it handles general feedback versus specific bug reports).

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?

When to use the tool is implied (when a bug or feedback needs to be reported), but no explicit guidance is given about when not to use it or how it compares to alternative tools. The description lacks a clear contextual boundary or exclusion criteria.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the qualifier 'current' indicating real-time data, but does not elaborate on return format or any edge cases. This adds modest value 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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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

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

For a zero-Parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys the tool's purpose. The lack of parameter details or return type is not a gap given the simplicity. Annotations cover safety, so no further context 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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is empty. This is appropriate for a version query tool.

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 function: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb (Show) and resource (current MCP platform and adapter versions), and this is distinct 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 implies usage: call this when you need version information. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the tool's trivial nature and lack of siblings with overlapping functionality, the context 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, so safety is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact content returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and lists the four key elements. No filler words or redundant phrases.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists the return components but does not describe format or example values. This is adequate for a simple info tool, though a bit more detail (e.g., whether it returns connection status strings) could improve 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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since no parameters exist.

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 toolkit state, enumerating specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling actions 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 implies this is a read-only status check but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions against siblings like show_version. The context is clear enough for a simple info tool, but lacks explicit direction.

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