cardguard-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool combines multiple fraud detection techniques and outputs an allow/review/block decision, risk_score, reasons, geo_country, and geo_org. This gives good insight into behavior, though it omits potential side effects or required permissions. No contradiction with 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 well-structured with a summary paragraph, an Args block listing parameters, and a Returns section listing output fields. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical info (purpose) is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return values adequately. It could mention error states or edge cases (e.g., invalid IP format), but overall it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with sibling tool names for differentiation.

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 provides a clear mapping of all 5 parameters (ip, email, card_bin, card_last4, amount_cents) with brief explanations (e.g., 'Transaction initiator IP address.'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though format constraints or examples would improve clarity.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Evaluate transaction fraud risk across multiple dimensions.' It specifies techniques like IP geolocation, BIN validation, Luhn algorithm, and amount patterns, distinguishing it from siblings that may focus on individual aspects (e.g., lookup_ip_intelligence).

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 (for comprehensive fraud risk evaluation) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings like lookup_ip_intelligence or sense_402_attempts. It provides no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool performs threat filtering and geolocation but does not disclose caching behavior, rate limits, cost, error handling, or what happens with invalid inputs. Minimal behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 concise (4 sentences) with a clear first-line summary. The Args/Returns section is structured and efficient. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by immediately stating the primary use case.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter details adequately. However, it does not explain the return structure (e.g., format of threat flags) or error conditions, leaving gaps for an agent to interpret the full response. Adequate but not 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 schema has one parameter 'ip' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds the format constraint 'IPv4/IPv6', which goes beyond the schema and helps agents provide correct inputs. This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 it performs 'IP threat filtering and geolocation lookup' and lists specific threat types (Tor, VPNs, proxies, etc.). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like evaluate_transaction_risk and verify_agent_for_subscription, which focus on risk assessment and agent identity, not IP intelligence.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with sibling tools is given, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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 provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool queries and inspects, which suggests a read-only operation, and mentions the return of summary statistics and log entries. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the data is real-time or cached. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise: three sentences plus structured Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently communicates the single parameter and return type. No extraneous information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the purpose, parameter, and general return content (summary statistics and log entries). It does not enumerate exact fields, but for a simple inspection tool, this is largely sufficient. The lack of usage guidance slightly reduces completeness.

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 description explicitly explains the 'limit' parameter beyond the schema, stating it controls the maximum number of recent attempts to retrieve with a default of 20. Since schema coverage for parameters is 0%, this addition is valuable. However, it does not specify valid range or constraints (e.g., min/max).

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 the verb 'Query' and 'inspect' along with the resource 'recent 402 rejection attempts and threat profile metrics', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The name 'sense_402_attempts' reinforces this. It distinguishes from siblings like 'evaluate_transaction_risk' by focusing specifically on 402 failures.

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 this tool (to inspect 402 attempts) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide guidance on alternatives. It lacks exclusion criteria or comparative context with sibling tools.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions return of verification status and URL, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., idempotency, state changes), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The nature of 'pre-verify' and 'unlock' suggests possible mutation, but this is unclear.

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 concise, using a one-line purpose followed by structured Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, though the format could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return info (verification status and URL). However, it lacks details on error handling, status structure, and behavioral traits. For a simple 2-param tool, it is adequate but not fully 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by specifying wallet_address format (EVM hex 0x...) and providing examples for agent_id (e.g., smithery-ai). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Pre-verify agent Web3 wallet authenticity or whitelist status to unlock SaaS checkout URL'. It specifies the verb (pre-verify), resource (agent wallet), and outcome (unlock URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like evaluate_transaction_risk and lookup_ip_intelligence.

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 usage when needing to obtain a subscription checkout URL after verification, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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