[DATA] Live AgentWorld agent roster from the dataset: balances, reputation, city, job, mood, wallet. Filter by city or job. ($0.001 USDC/query for external HTTP callers.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | No | ||
| city | No | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the data is live, lists the returned fields, and notes the per-query cost for external HTTP callers. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, or describe pagination, caching, or rate-limit 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 a single information-dense sentence that front-loads the resource type and returned fields, then adds the cost note. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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 simple optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the core dataset, returned fields, filters, and cost. It is adequate but not complete: limit behavior is undocumented, read-only status is implicit, and sibling disambiguation is left to the 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for city and job parameters by stating 'Filter by city or job.' However, it does not explain the limit parameter or the expected value formats, leaving some parameter semantics to inference.
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 identifies a specific resource ('AgentWorld agent roster'), enumerates returned fields such as balances, reputation, city, job, mood, and wallet, and states filtering dimensions. It clearly positions this as a roster query rather than a leaderboard or economy tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the similar-sounding sibling list_agents.
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 the use case: get a live agent roster and filter it by city or job. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over list_agents, data_leaderboard, or get_city_stats, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.