score[$0.02 USD per call] MSS v2 model strength + sovereignty score (0-850) - score any model profile
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment | No | Optional x402 payment proof (EIP-3009 signed authorization). Call once without it to receive the payment requirements, then retry with the proof. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the $0.02 per-call cost and the 0-850 output scale. It does not contradict the annotations, and the payment handshake is covered in the schema's payment parameter description.
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 entire description is one compact, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The cost, purpose, scope, and output range are all included efficiently.
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?
The description plus annotations and schema cover cost, safety, payment flow, and score range. However, it is ambiguous how the tool knows which model profile to score given there are no required parameters; the phrase 'any model profile' needs more context for an agent to invoke it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of cost hints at payment relevance, but it does not add meaningful semantics for the optional payment parameter beyond what the schema already explains.
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 a specific verb ('score'), names the resource ('MSS v2 model strength + sovereignty score'), and gives a concrete output range (0-850) and scope ('any model profile'). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like agent_research or market_intelligence, so it stops short of a 5.
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 about when to call this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites stated. 'Score any model profile' implies a use case, but the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.
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.