Query Mingxin's signed benchmark results for FX-series storage acceleration: throughput +29-40%, TTFT -26-32% (480B model on 8x AMD MI308X), model loading 6.2-9.3x vs NFS, and the full R1-R9 report list with hosted PDF URLs. All numbers come from signed test reports; reproducible via github.com/mingxin-tech/mingxin-kvcache-bench.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that results come from signed test reports and are reproducible via GitHub. No annotations, but description adds context about data provenance. No mention of auth or rate limits but not expected for a read query.
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?
Front-loaded with key information. Slightly verbose with exact numbers and fallback reference, but still efficient.
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 parameters or output schema, description fully specifies the tool's output, context, and reproducibility. No gaps.
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?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning by detailing what the tool returns (metrics, report list, PDF URLs). Baseline 4 for zero params.
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?
Clearly states it queries benchmark results for FX-series storage acceleration, with specific metrics and references. Distinguishes from siblings like estimate_roi and search_mingxin_docs.
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?
Implies usage for getting benchmark data, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Sibling tools are different but not contrasted.
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 targets a distinct function: ROI estimation, benchmark querying, and documentation search. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (estimate_roi, query_benchmark, search_mingxin_docs), making the naming predictable and coherent.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing information about Mingxin's storage solutions. Each tool serves a clear need without unnecessary clutter.
The three tools cover the essential areas: ROI estimation, benchmark evidence, and documentation search. Minor gaps like a contact or pricing tool exist, but the surface is largely complete for an informational server.