get_qaSettled strikes where our count disagrees with the result (JSON).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_qa"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| venue | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| symbol | No | ||
| mismatch_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not explain what a mismatch means, how "our count" is derived, whether results are paginated or how many are typically returned. For a diagnostic tool whose whole value is interpreting discrepancies, that is a meaningful gap.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. The most important information (what a mismatch is, how to scope results) is absent, not compressed.
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 six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description would need to do real work and does not. An agent could not confidently choose values for venue, symbol, or mismatch_only, nor know what shape the results take.
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% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails. It never mentions limit, offset, venue, symbol, or mismatch_only, and its "(JSON)" note actually conflicts with the format enum that offers "text" as an option, so it adds confusion rather than meaning.
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?
"Settled strikes where our count disagrees with the result" names a resource and a filtering condition, so the gist is graspable, but the vocabulary is unexplained jargon ("strikes", "our count") and the verb is only implied by the name. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as receipts or history, which likely also deal with settled outcomes.
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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion of similar tools. The agent must guess that this is a reconciliation/audit tool rather than a general settled-results lookup.
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.