aegis-security-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the probe returns (uptime and call counters), which implies a harmless read, but never states that it has no side effects, requires no auth, or whether it touches the network or reports degraded status. Some useful context, clear gaps remain.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the essential identity ('Liveness probe') before the return-value detail. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must hint at return values; it names uptime and call counters, which is adequate for a trivial probe. It could say slightly more about response shape or failure semantics, but for a zero-parameter liveness endpoint this is close to 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a liveness probe for the named Aegis security MCP server that returns uptime and call counters. It is clearly distinguishable from the only sibling, screen_token, whose purpose is unrelated. It stops just short of a 5 because it does not explicitly frame itself against alternatives, though none are needed here.

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 phrase 'liveness probe' implies the usage context (health checking / availability verification) without stating when to call it, when not to, or any cadence guidance. No alternatives are named and none are necessary for a zero-parameter probe, but the description leaves the trigger condition implicit.

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 burden and does so well: it declares read-only, idempotent, no side effects, names the underlying engine and attribution, and states the return type. It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on unsupported chains, which keeps it from a 5 for a no-annotation tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the following sections are clearly labeled. The trigger-phrase list overlaps somewhat with the WHEN TO USE section, adding minor redundancy, but every line is scannable and purposeful.

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 read-only screening tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, exclusions, return type, and side-effect profile. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'structured risk summary' contains, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or chain-specific constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (screen) and resource (EVM token contract) plus the exact risk categories checked (honeypot, blacklist, high buy tax, unverified source, ownership renounced). The sibling tool 'health' is unrelated, so no confusion is possible; an agent can route to this tool 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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE scenarios, trigger phrases, and a NOT FOR clause for price predictions and trading advice. The boundary conditions are fully specified, leaving nothing to inference.

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