$0.01 via x402: itemized trucking cost-per-mile + minimum profitable rate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mpg | No | ||
| other_mo | No | ||
| tires_cpm | No | ||
| x_payment | No | ||
| fuel_price | No | ||
| annual_miles | Yes | ||
| insurance_mo | No | ||
| maintenance_cpm | No | ||
| truck_payment_mo | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or whether it modifies any data. With no annotations provided, the agent lacks critical safety information (e.g., whether it is destructive).
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 extremely short (one line), which is concise but at the expense of clarity. It lacks structure and does not earn its place by providing sufficient information for tool selection and invocation.
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 9 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain inputs, outputs, or usage context, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly.
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?
All 9 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter. The phrase 'itemized trucking cost-per-mile' only vaguely hints that parameters are cost components but fails to explain which parameter corresponds to what cost, leaving the agent unable to correctly fill inputs.
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 it provides 'itemized trucking cost-per-mile + minimum profitable rate,' giving a general purpose. However, the phrase '$0.01 via x402' is cryptic and not explanatory. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tool 'truck_load_profit' which likely focuses on profit calculations.
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 like 'truck_load_profit.' The description does not mention any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage.
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.