Marketing Mcp

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a price per call, which is a cost indicator. No information on whether the tool is read-only, destructive, has rate limits, or any side effects is provided.

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 very short, but it wastes space on a tautology ('Tool: get_marketing_data') and a price template that is not filled in. It lacks structure or front-loaded key information. Every sentence does not earn 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'id' is, what data is returned, or the scope of 'marketing data'. The lack of usage context and parameter information makes it inadequate for an AI agent.

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 the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add any meaning about the 'id' parameter, such as its format, purpose, or constraints. No additional value is given beyond the schema's structure.

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 begins with 'Tool: get_marketing_data' which is a tautology of the name. It mentions 'Uses: httpx public APIs' but does not specify what marketing data is retrieved or what the tool does beyond that. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_marketing' or 'list_marketing_items'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description offers no context for selection.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The minimal phrase 'Health check.' does not reveal if the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has any rate limits. For a health check, it is likely safe, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 concise at two words. Every word is earned, but it could benefit from a bit more context. Still, it avoids redundancy and is immediately understandable.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks details such as expected response format (e.g., status code, message) which would aid an agent in using the tool effectively. A slightly more informative description would improve completeness.

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, so schema_description_coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline score 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 'Health check.' clearly indicates this tool performs a health check, which is distinct from the sibling marketing tools. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the basic purpose, though it does not specify what aspects are checked.

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 usage guidelines are provided, but the context of sibling tools (all marketing-related) implies that this tool is for system health verification. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, which is acceptable for a simple health 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or what side effects exist, nor does it mention rate limits, authentication, or return behavior.

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 brief (two short sentences), but brevity comes at the cost of essential information. It lacks structure and front-loaded purpose. The sentence about price is irrelevant to task selection.

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 a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. Agents cannot understand what the tool does, what the filters parameter expects, or what response to expect.

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% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for the 'filters' parameter. It does not list expected properties, format, or usage notes, leaving agents with no guidance.

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 merely restates the tool name and mentions using 'httpx public APIs' and a price. It does not specify what 'marketing items' are or what listing entails. This fails to communicate any distinct purpose, making it nearly tautological.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_marketing_data, health_check, search_marketing). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives.

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 are absent, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool uses public APIs and a price, but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or whether data is read-only. The mention of 'public APIs' hints at read behavior but is insufficient.

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 very brief but lacks essential content. It wastes space on a generic structure ('Tool: ... Uses: ... Price: ...') without providing functional 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter with no description, the description should thoroughly explain return values, usage examples, and parameter details. It fails entirely, offering only price and API type.

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 the description adds no information about the single required 'query' parameter. There is no explanation of what format or values are expected, leaving the agent completely unaware of how to construct a valid call.

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 mentions it uses httpx public APIs but does not clearly state what action it performs. It only implies a search functionality through the name, but lacks explicit verb-resource clarity. Siblings like 'get_marketing_data' and 'list_marketing_items' suggest similar purposes, but no differentiation is provided.

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 'search_marketing' versus its siblings. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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