opencrater-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or if it requires authentication. The agent is left with no insight into side effects or safety.

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, making it concise, but it is not front-loaded with a clear action and reads more like a subtitle than a functional description. Every word earns its place, but the lack of clarity reduces effectiveness.

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, no annotations, and only vague wording, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify return values, expected behavior, or how the tool fits into the workflow alongside siblings, leaving significant gaps.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but the baseline for 0 params is 4, which is justified since no additional semantics are 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 'How a maintainer can start earning USDC from their MCP server or CLI tool with OpenCrater' vaguely implies the tool provides guidance, but lacks a clear action verb (e.g., 'get', 'list', 'show'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'getting started', but the purpose remains ambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (opencrater_network_stats, opencrater_supported_tools). The description fails to specify use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer without support.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It labels the data as 'Live' but does not disclose refresh intervals, caching behavior, or auth requirements. For a no-parameter read tool, the description is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the output metrics. No unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema, so description must explain return values. It enumerates metrics but omits data types or structure. Given the tool's simplicity, this is mostly complete, lacking only minor structural details.

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. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics as none exist, but that 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 tool provides 'Live OpenCrater network momentum' and lists specific metrics, making the purpose unambiguous. Sibling tools are 'opencrater_get_started' and 'opencrater_supported_tools', so this tool is distinctly about network stats.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool name and context imply usage for retrieving network metrics, without providing exclusionary or alternative guidance.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool returns (a list of tools) but discloses no other behavior such as read-only nature, caching, or side effects.

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 noun phrase rather than a complete sentence with a verb. It is minimally concise but lacks proper structure; it could be rephrased as 'Lists the AI coding tools that support OpenCrater Blips rendering.'

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clarify the tool's return format or further explain key terms like 'OpenCrater Blips.' It falls short of providing a complete understanding.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable but it does not elaborate on the tool's output or function beyond a vague phrase.

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 indicates the tool lists AI coding tools that support OpenCrater Blips rendering. It differentiates from siblings (get_started, network_stats) by focusing on supported tools, but the verb is implicit and the purpose is somewhat vague.

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 tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are listed but not contrasted. There is no mention of context or exclusion criteria.

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