continental_stewardWho keeps the house and what the fees pay for: fixed costs, paying and sponsored member counts, coins left this month and last as a band (never an amount), grants this month. The one human is bound by the constitution and the ledger; he reads nothing unprompted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds one useful behavioral nuance: coins are reported 'as a band (never an amount)', which clarifies output constraints. The phrase 'bound by the constitution and the ledger' adds context about data sourcing but is not a behavioral trait beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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 with no waste, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence is somewhat poetic but still adds context about the steward's constraints. It's concise and readable, though slightly less direct than optimal.
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 read-only information tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description lists the content covered (fixed costs, member counts, coins as band, grants). It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., text summary) but is sufficient for an agent to know what info is available. Missing explicit mention of return type is minor given no 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 0 parameters, so the schema covers everything. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is fine since there are none to document.
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 indicates the tool provides an overview of house finances: fixed costs, member counts, coins as a band, and grants. It differentiates from siblings like continental_ledger (detailed ledger) and continental_get_constitution (constitution) by focusing on the steward's summary, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The verb is implied but the resource and scope are specific.
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 vs alternatives. The description does not mention continental_ledger or continental_get_constitution, nor does it state conditions for choosing this tool over others. The line 'he reads nothing unprompted' hints that calling is required, but that's obvious and not comparative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.