SEFAZ AM: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: calling with no args returns the login link, while passing a token yields a session-only login. It also differentiates between permanent config-level authentication and temporary in-call authentication, which is useful context. No contradictions with 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 condensed and contains useful detail without filler. It is a single block with somewhat run-on phrasing, but every sentence earns its place and the 'Best:'/'Or' structure makes the alternatives clear.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter auth tool, it covers both storage of a permanent token and a session-based fallback. It explains the no-args behavior and the token-passing behavior sufficiently for an agent, though it does not describe invalid-token handling or explicitly compare to sibling 'connect'.

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 only defines 'token' as a string with no description, so the description fully compensates. It explicitly says the token is a JWT, that it is optional, and that when passed it enables session-only login, while omitting it retrieves the link.

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

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

The description clearly identifies this as an authentication tool for MCP.AI in IDE agents, instructing the user to 'log in in the browser, copy the access token.' It also explains the two invocation modes: with a token for session login or no args to get the login link. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 'connect', so it stops short of 5.

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 and alternatives: the 'best' method is adding an Authorization header to the server config for permanent access, while passing a token provides a session-only login. It is clear for whom this tool is intended ('for IDE agents, etc.') but lacks explicit exclusions or distinctions from sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already establish safety. The description adds value by revealing response states: 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' vs 'connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs' when credentials are missing. However, it doesn't explain what `pending` contains or the JSON shape of `connect_url`.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, the success case, and the missing-credentials case. It's efficient but could be split into a more scannable structure (e.g., bullet points for the two states).

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 carries the burden of explaining the return value, which it does adequately by covering the two primary states. Gaps remain: what happens when only some providers are connected, what `pending` contains, and the exact structure of the URLs. Still, it's useful for an agent to decide whether to call this before other operations.

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 parameters, so per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavioral aspects since there are no parameters to document. Nothing more is needed.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like `authenticate` (which establishes auth) and `show_version`/`toolkit_info` (which report version/info, not connection state). The conditional behavior is well-defined.

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 guides when to use this tool: to check whether providers are connected and retrieve connection URLs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context of a status check is clear from sibling differentiation.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important non-obvious behaviors: invoke can run tools even when not installed, one-off installation avoids bloating the toolkit, missing credentials return a connect link, missing payment returns a checkout link, and actions install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel are write operations needing owner/admin. It does not quite fully describe response shape or error behavior, but provides material behavioral 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?

The description is long, but every paragraph add relevant operational guidance for what is effectively a hub tool with 14 different actions. It is well front-loaded with the core flow and distinguishes important actions, though it could be tightened to avoid the wall-of-text feel and make the action-to-parameter mapping easier to scan.

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 of the tool, the description gives a good broad overview, including core flow, write authorization, billing/login edge cases, and prompt library behavior. However, it lacks complete information about required parameter fields, return shapes, error cases, pagination, or the exact behavior of less-common actions like report_bug, request_mcp, subscribe/cancel, and publish_prompt. It is not complete enough for fully unambiguous use.

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%, and while the description explains action-level flow (search, describe, invoke, list_tools, report_bug, request_mcp, prompt actions), it does not map out most of the 23 parameters. For example, it does not clearly explain the difference between query, message, request_details, conversation, or the role of tier_slug, bailiwickmediate, prompt_targets, cancel_reason, etc. The description provides useful context but does not compensate for the extremely low schema 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 explicitly identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace and runtime, clearly stating it is both a catalog and a way to execute MCP tools. It goes beyond the name by describing the core discovery-to-invocation flow and list-like capabilities, distinguishing it from generic sibling 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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for one-off usage, use install only for permanent toolkit addition, use list_tools for current callable tools, use request_mcp when nothing fits, and use subscribe/cancel with cancel_reason for billing. It also states that write actions require workspace owner/admin, making appropriate authorization clear.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on side effects, data handling, or permission requirements. It adds only minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, which are present but sparse.

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 (one sentence) and directly states the action and a key parameter usage. It is appropriately brief without unnecessary padding.

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 explains the overall purpose and hints at the conversation parameter, but leaves 'context' and 'message' unexplained. Given the absence of an output schema, it is acceptable to omit return details, but the parameter gaps make the tool's full usage ambiguous.

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 for parameters is 0% (no descriptions in the schema). The description only mentions the 'conversation' parameter and its role in reproduction, but does not explain 'context' or 'message'. This insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: reporting a bug, missing feature, or sending feedback. This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tools (e.g., authenticate, connect) which serve different purposes.

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 by instructing to include the conversation array for reproduction, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide conditional guidance. The purpose is clear enough that usage is inferred.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it's hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credits (mentioned), data is public not confidential, and the client is responsible for lawful purpose under LGPD. This goes beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph with front-loaded critical information: the tool name and purpose. It covers purpose, hosting, payment, data source, and LGPD compliance in three sentences. It's concise and each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullets.

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

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

Given that there is no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, payment, data sensitivity, and legal responsibility. For a read-only query tool with two obvious parameters (cpf/cnpj), it is fairly complete. However, it lacks any indication of alternative tools for other states or general tax queries, but that's not required for this 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters are explained in the schema. The description does not mention the parameters at all. Since there are two parameters (cpf and cnpj) and the tool is about certidão de débitos, an agent could infer that one must be provided, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation. It only says 'consulta informação...' but doesn't specify parameter semantics beyond obvious names.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: querying SEFAZ AM's negative debt certificate from an official source. It includes the resource (certidão de débitos) and the action (consultar). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the sibling tools are general system tools (authenticate, connect, etc.), so no confusion arises.

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 explains when to use this tool: to consult official Brazilian government information, specifically tax debt certificates from SEFAZ AM. It also mentions it requires prepaid credits and does not use platform credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by specifying that it returns MCP platform and adapter versions, going slightly beyond the minimal 'Show Version' title.

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 redundant wording or repetition of the tool name. Every word contributes 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?

For a zero-parameter, version-inspection tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context. It covers what is returned, and the tool's complexity is minimal.

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 effectively 100% since no parameters exist. There is no parameter behavior to describe, so the baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly names the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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

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

The description implies the clear use case: call this tool when version information about the MCP platform or adapter is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but for a simple informational tool this context is sufficient and not 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds transparency by specifying what state is returned and confirming that the tool is purely informational.

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 the core action front-loaded ('Returns the current toolkit state'). Every clause adds specific detail without redundancy or filler.

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 information tool, the description fully captures its scope and return contents. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently describes what the caller will learn, and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description focuses on the output meaningfully and does not need to explain parameter behavior because there are no 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version by focusing on full-state introspection rather than a simple version number.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident and it has no parameters, so the intended usage is strongly implied from the description. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, which prevents a higher score.

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