enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Crypto Accountants Directory: it starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly. Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free. Also returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that the underlying enquiry involves no purchase, no payment, no guaranteed quote, and is free, while noting that the tool returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This makes the read-only, informational nature clear, though it could more explicitly state that this tool itself performs no submission.
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 compact and front-loaded with 'Read first.' Every sentence earns its place: the core purpose, the key exclusions, and the return contents. It avoids redundancy and is easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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, zero-parameter informational tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, clarifies its relationship to submit_enquiry, and summarizes what it returns. It does not provide exhaustive detail about output formatting, but no output schema exists and the tool's purpose is to present human-readable explanatory content.
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 and the schema is 100% covered by the empty properties object, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly contains no parameter information because no parameters exist to document.
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: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on the Crypto Accountants Directory and lists the exact content it returns. This sharply distinguishes it from submit_enquiry itself and from the comparison-focused sibling tools.
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 opening 'Read first' gives an explicit usage directive: this should be used before submit_enquiry. It gives clear context for when to call it, though it does not explicitly exclude or compare against sibling tools like compare_criteria or compare_table.
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.
Each tool maps to a clearly distinct output: criteria, options, full table, enquiry explanation, enquiry fields, and submission. Even the three compare tools are unlikely to be confused because their descriptions specify different levels of detail.
The compare_* tools follow a consistent verb-noun pattern, but the enquiry tools mix conventions: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use an enquiry_ prefix while submit_enquiry leads with the verb. This makes the naming pattern less predictable, though still readable.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for this server's two clear purposes: showing a comparison and submitting an enquiry. Each tool has a distinct role and none feels redundant.
The comparison side covers criteria, options, and the full table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, fields, and a two-step submission flow with consent confirmation. No obvious missing operation is needed for the stated site workflow.