NEUS MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description reinforces this with 'read-only context' and the once-after-sign-in cadence, but adds little beyond that; with an output schema present it needn't describe the return shape.

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 tight sentences: content first, invocation cadence second. No filler, no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 zero-param, read-only snapshot tool with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage needs only to say what it returns and when to call it, both of which are present. Only a hint about whether it is a prerequisite for other Proofable calls is absent.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-argument tool 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the signed-in Proofable profile') and enumerates the payload (proof index, agents, permissions, verifier summary), which is far more than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings that also surface this data, such as proofable_agents_list or proofable_verifiers_catalog.

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?

'Use once after sign-in' gives a genuine timing cue for invocation. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, so an agent must infer that agents_list/verifiers_catalog are the scoped-down substitutes when only one slice is needed.

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 behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the pass/fail (not records) return shape and the auth/session constraint that gates richer access. It stops short of describing rate limits or partial-failure behavior, but this is solid added context.

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 front-loaded sentences that answer the core question first, then qualify with auth context. Slightly dense in the middle sentence but no wasted 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return fields, and it caps its return-value discussion at the useful 'pass or fail, not records' distinction. Auth behavior for signed-in versus signed-out callers is covered, leaving little an agent needs that is missing.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'omit wallet when signed in' rule the description repeats. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full 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 states a specific question the tool answers ('Does this wallet already have the required proofs?') and clarifies the output shape ('Returns pass or fail, not records'). It implicitly separates itself from proofable_proofs_get, but does not differentiate itself from the three actual siblings listed (context, verifiers_catalog, verify_or_guide).

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 a clear conditional: signed-out callers get this check, and reading proof bodies requires a signed-in session, which routes the agent to proofable_proofs_get. There is no explicit 'do not use when' for the other siblings, but the auth-based selection rule 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 this a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the payload includes per-check inputs and networks, which is useful content context, but says nothing about caching, refresh cadence, or whether the catalog is static.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the return content and its shape. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter catalog with a full output schema and rich annotations is nearly self-describing; the description covers what the catalog contains. It could be marginally stronger by noting the catalog is the entry point for the verify workflow, but nothing an agent strictly needs is missing.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing argument 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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (supported check definitions, with the inputs and networks each requires), which distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like proofable_verify and proofable_verify_submit. However, it never clarifies the relationship between 'check definitions' in the description and 'verifiers' in the name/title, leaving mild ambiguity about whether checks and verifiers are the same concept.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer on its own that this catalog is meant to be consulted before configuring verification, rather than, say, a runtime check like proofable_proofs_check.

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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully adds that no proof is created. But readOnlyHint=false signals some write side effect (likely session/state), and the schema note that `data` is 'Used only when a new Proof is needed' sits in tension with 'does not create a proof' — the description never resolves what actually gets written.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler; each sentence carries information (action, branching outcome, non-goal). Minor slack in the vague qualifier 'for the selected Proofable checks', but overall efficiently structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be described, and the schema fully covers the six parameters including the nested `data` and `options` objects. Combined with two of three behavioral hints covered by annotations, the description is nearly complete; the only real gap is sibling routing within a crowded verify family.

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 100%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema itself (verifierIds sourcing from the catalog, chain as an optional network hint, walletAddress fallback to the signed-in account). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve a verification request for the selected Proofable checks') and clarifies the dual-mode behavior (return proofs or return the next step). It also adds a negative discriminator ('This tool does not create a proof'), but it never names the close siblings proofable_verify, proofable_verify_prepare, proofable_verify_submit, or proofable_proofs_check, so an agent must still infer the boundary from the description alone.

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 branching sentence implies when the tool applies ('Returns current qualifying proofs when they exist; otherwise returns the single next step'), which is useful precondition context. However, with four verify-family siblings in the list there is no explicit routing guidance on when to pick this tool over proofable_verify_prepare or proofable_verify, and no stated prerequisites.

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