Sign availability and latency calculations from bounded samples; 0.004 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "policy": {
+ "maximum_average_latency_ms": 100,
+ "minimum_availability": 0.99
+ },
+ "samples": [
+ {
+ "latency_ms": 12.5,
+ "success": true
+ },
+ {
+ "latency_ms": 15.5,
+ "success": true
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two real traits: the operation signs (produces a cryptographic attestation) and it costs 0.004 USDC, which the agent needs to know before invoking. However, it omits what happens on invalid or insufficient samples, any auth/prerequisite requirements, and whether the result is deterministic. Cost disclosure is genuine added value, but the mutation/signing profile is only partially covered.
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?
A single compact sentence with the action, its input basis, and the price front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing cost clause reads slightly like an advert appended to the functional description.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and 100% schema coverage documents the inputs. But with no annotations at all, the description is thin on the operational envelope (prerequisites, failure behavior) for a paid signing operation, leaving it only minimally adequate.
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% and the schema includes an example, so the parameters are already documented. The phrase 'bounded samples' and 'availability and latency calculations' loosely maps to the samples and policy inputs but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (Sign) and resource (availability and latency calculations) plus the input basis (bounded samples). An agent can tell this is an attestation/signing tool, distinct from siblings like verify or signed_result_comparator, though the description never names those neighbors to reinforce the distinction.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The agent is told what the tool does but not the conditions that should select it over siblings such as verify or signed_result_comparator.
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.