mcp.market gateway

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only status check by listing return values, but it never explicitly states that the tool has no side effects, requires no parameters, or what happens on failure. The behavioral surface is minimal but not explicitly disclosed.

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 compact sentence that immediately lists the three things the tool returns: balance, spend, and caps. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the most important 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only informational tool, the description covers the essential return categories. It doesn't define 'caps' or specify units/currency, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to know what it will get.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are no parameters to describe. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 title clearly states 'Show balance and caps' and the description enumerates the specific data returned: prepaid balance, today's spend, and this key's caps. While there is no explicit verb in the description, the resource and scope are unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but its topic (balance/caps) is unique among 'call', 'describe', and 'search'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives. An agent must infer that 'balance' is the right choice when balance information is needed, with no help from the description.

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, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does disclose useful traits: metering, spend-cap enforcement, reliability logging, and blocking of F-graded servers. However, it omits other important runtime behaviors such as error handling, return format, authentication, and what happens when a cap is exceeded.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action, and the supporting sentences add relevant policy context without excessive detail. The mention of reliability logging is minor but does not bloat the definition.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested arguments object, the description is not fully self-sufficient. It fails to mention return/error behavior, required knowledge of server/tool identifiers, and how arguments should be shaped when invoking the tool.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds some context ('listed server' clarifies the server parameter; spend caps relate to pricing), but it does not explain the arguments object, valid tool names, or the relationship between max_price_micros and the enforced spend caps.

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 uses an active verb ('Run') and clearly names the resource ('one tool on a listed server'), which makes the core action understandable. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools, so differentiation is left mostly to context.

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 about when to use this tool versus balance, describe, or search, and no prerequisite steps such as discovering valid server names or tool names. The spend-cap and F-grade remarks are policy constraints, not usage direction.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns a comprehensive detail object including safety grade, adoption, price, and per-tool write-action flags. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, or whether the server name must be exact. The description adds meaningful behavioral context but leaves some gaps.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Full detail for one server') and then lists the included content. It is concise and every phrase adds value. It could be slightly more structured with separators, but it is efficient and readable.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it tells the agent what input is needed and what the response will contain. The main gaps are lack of explicit read-only confirmation and no guidance on error cases (e.g., unknown server). Given the tool's simplicity, this is a strong but not perfect definition.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter (server) with its format examples. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does imply that the server identifier is a registry name or slug. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 verb ('describe') and resource ('one server'), and enumerates the exact detail categories returned: user rating, reviewer comments, safety grade, scan summary, adoption, price, and every tool with its input schema and write-action status. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search (which would find servers) and call (which would invoke a tool).

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 implies usage: call this when you need full detail for a single server. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use search to find servers first, use call to invoke a tool). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the right time to use it, but there is no explicit routing 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses ranking order (user rating first, then adoption), what each hit carries (rating, safety grade, adoption score), and the hiding behavior for D/F grades unless min_grade says otherwise. It does not mention pagination or whether results are live vs cached, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 sentences, all informative, with the most important behavior (ranking and grade hiding) front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral context: ranking, result contents, and grade filtering. It does not describe result count or pagination, but the schema's limit parameter and the description's ranking details make the tool callable. Slightly more on result shape would make it complete.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning for min_grade by explaining the D/F hiding behavior, which is not in the schema. However, it does not add detail for limit, remote_only, reviewed_only, certified_only, or max_price_micros beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('MCP servers'), and the input style ('in plain words'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by describing ranking and filtering behavior, so an agent can tell it apart from call/describe/balance without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use it: when you need to discover MCP servers for a job. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set (balance, call, describe) is clearly different in function, and the description's 'Find MCP servers' is enough context. Missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance keeps it from a 5.

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