TradeBasis Automotive Appraisal MCP (US)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the response is static markdown (confirming no dynamic computation or side effects) and includes an as_of date, which signals the content may be time-stamped and potentially dated. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 packs the tool's content scope and output format without redundancy. Every clause earns its place, and the most identifying information (what it is, what it returns) is front-loaded.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent will receive (static markdown with an as_of date) and what the content covers. There is nothing an agent needs to know to invoke this correctly that is missing.

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 the schema imposes no burden. The description appropriately focuses on output instead of parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 clearly identifies the tool's resource (TradeBasis overview) and the content it provides: what TradeBasis is, the problem it solves, differentiators, and target audience. It also states the return format (static markdown with an as_of date), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings focused on pricing, research, and VIN decoding.

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 the tool (when an agent needs a general introduction to TradeBasis), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of 'use tradebasis_pricing_and_tiers for pricing details' or similar routing, so the guidance relies on inference rather than explicit 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?

The phrase 'Static markdown' is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it tells the agent the result is a fixed, pre-authored document rather than live or computed data. The description is consistent with the annotations and adds useful context.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the plan names and prices, then summarizes the content and the static nature. There is no filler, repetition of the title, or unnecessary detail.

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 static reference tool with no parameters, this description is complete: it names the plans, states the scope of the content, and signals the markdown format. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool 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?

There are zero parameters and the parameter schema is already complete, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 clearly identifies the resource as TradeBasis subscription tiers and enumerates the key content: Lite vs Pro, including prices, inclusions, and target audience. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools by topic, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'describes'.

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 this tool is for pricing/plan questions and states what content the markdown contains, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like tradebasis_about or tradebasis_research_library. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is handled. The description adds value by stating the output is static markdown and that the briefs are authored by TradeBasis, giving the agent expectations about content freshness and provenance without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Two sentences cover the resource type, the call pattern, the parameter semantics, and the return format. Every clause earns its place, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the title exists.

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 a single optional parameter, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: the two invocation modes, what the parameter means, and what the response looks like. There is no missing detail that would prevent a correct call.

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 already describes the optional topic parameter, but the description adds meaning by explicitly clarifying that the value can be a slug or title and that omitting it lists all briefs. This augments the schema rather than merely repeating it, so it earns above the baseline.

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 clearly states this tool provides static research/market-report briefs authored by TradeBasis, and it specifies the two operational modes: list all briefs with no arguments, or retrieve a single brief by topic. This gives a specific, unambiguous verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from the sibling tools (about, pricing, vin decode).

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 explains exactly when to call with no arguments vs. when to pass a topic, which is the primary usage decision an agent faces. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the sibling names are self-explanatory and the research-brief scope is clear, so the usage context is well covered.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('returns no valuation, no comparable listings and no market data') and the additional fields for hybrid/EV vehicles (electrification level, battery/charging facts), which are not in the annotations. No contradiction with read-only semantics.

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, each earning its place: the first states the primary purpose and outputs, the second adds EV-specific behavior, the third clarifies non-goals. It is front-loaded with the core action and lists attributes efficiently without redundancy or fluff.

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?

This is a single-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description must convey what the agent will get. It lists the identity fields, EV specifics, and explicitly states what is excluded. Missing, though not critical, are error handling for invalid VINs and the exact return structure; however, for a decode tool the field enumeration is sufficient. A 4 reflects strong coverage with minor gaps.

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 already provides a description for the 'vin' parameter ('The 17-character Vehicle Identification Number to decode.'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description repeats the 17-character length and requirement but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 the specific verb 'Decode' paired with the resource 'VIN' and enumerates the exact output fields (year, make, model, trim, body style, drivetrain, engine, transmission, fuel type). It also adds electrification details for hybrid/EV, making it unambiguous. The sibling tools (about, pricing, research library) cover entirely different domains, so the tool's distinct purpose is clear without opening schemas.

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 clearly states this is 'Identification only' and explicitly excludes valuation, comparables, and market data, which tells the agent when NOT to use it. However, it does not name an alternative tool (e.g., pricing tool) for those needs, leaving routing to inference. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5.

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