x402-poisson-pmf
Poisson Pmf: Poisson Pmf
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
minia2a-mcp
by uk.minia2a
TDQS
C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral information such as inputs, outputs, edge cases, or calculation behavior. 'Poisson Pmf' merely labels the domain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It repeats the tool name and offers no useful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even with no formal parameters, an agent needs to know what the tool returns, how it is invoked, and how it differs from similar distribution tools. The description provides none of this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties, so schema coverage is vacuously 100% and there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is 'Poisson Pmf: Poisson Pmf', which simply restates the tool name with no verb and no explanation of what the tool computes or returns. This is a tautology rather than a purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related probability tools like x402-binomial-pmf or x402-geometric-pmf. The description gives no context for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
D1.6/5.0
Disambiguation1/5
The tool set is saturated with near-duplicates and synonyms: character-count vs char-count, clamp vs clamp-value, is-abundant vs is-abundant-num vs is-abundant-number, and fetch vs browser-scrape vs web-scrape vs text-scrape. Generic names like 'difference', 'normalize', 'range', and 'partition' make the boundaries even harder for an agent to determine.
Naming Consistency2/5
Most tools share a x402- kebab-case prefix, but the set mixes noun-only names (math, hash, prime, time), verb-first names (get_stats, find, validate), auto-generated names (x402-publish-1787853294312-base-account), and inconsistent variants like temp vs temperature vs temperature-convert. This is not a coherent verb_noun convention despite the common prefix.
Tool Count1/5
1677 tools is an extreme count that creates selection paralysis and makes coherent agent use impractical. A utility or marketplace server at this scale needs sub-services or namespacing rather than a flat tool list.
Completeness2/5
The surface has broad token coverage across many utility categories, but the marketplace aspect is incomplete: service_discovery and get_stats exist, yet there are no generic publish, update, delete, or account-management operations. Utility families also contain redundant variants without clear completion or lifecycle structure.