request_dataFree: ask for a ticker, bank or release we lack. what required (500 chars max), no links/HTML. Limit 5/hour, 20/wallet/day. Returns ok.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| what | Yes | ||
| wallet | No | ||
| contact | No | ||
| frequency | No | ||
| price_usd | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "ok"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: the request is free, the 'what' field is limited to 500 characters, links and HTML are prohibited, and there are rate limits of 5/hour and 20/wallet/day. It also says it returns 'ok', though it does not explain what happens after submission or how the request is processed.
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 extremely compact and front-loaded: it leads with 'Free', then states the request action, constraints, rate limits, and return value. Every fragment earns its place, with no redundant background.
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 the description need not explain return values in detail. However, with five input parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is still too thin on parameter semantics and does not fully explain when to use this tool versus checking coverage through siblings.
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% for five parameters, and the description only explains the required 'what' parameter with its 500-character limit and content restrictions. It does not describe the purpose or format of 'wallet', 'contact', 'frequency', or 'price_usd', leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.
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 states a specific action and resource: ask for a ticker, bank, or release that the service lacks. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as search_coverage, which an agent might need to check first.
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 'ask for a ticker, bank or release we lack' implies the usage context: request data that is not already covered. However, it provides no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative workflow, such as checking search_coverage before submitting a request.
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.