2s

Official

by 2s-io

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.82.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct domain or specific task, and descriptions clearly differentiate them. Even within similar areas like 'search' or 'validate', the corpora or identifier types are unique, minimizing confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use a consistent 'domain.tool-name' pattern with dots as separators. Names are descriptive and follow a similar style (snake_case with hyphens where needed), making them predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 201 tools, the server is extremely heavy for any single purpose. While it covers many domains, the quantity exceeds typical scopes and may overwhelm or confuse an agent.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers a wide array of domains but has notable gaps (e.g., no historical stock data beyond daily quote, no weather forecast, limited medical coverage). Completeness is decent for a general-purpose server but not exhaustive.
Average 3.8/5 across 194 of 201 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 2 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 126 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 21, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It says 'Recent' but does not define the time window, nor does it describe output format, data limits, or side effects. The agent is left unaware of the tool's operational characteristics.
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 a single sentence, which is very concise but at the expense of clarity. For a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, it is under-specified. Important details are omitted, making it more insufficient than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, return value, pagination, or any usage constraints. The agent lacks the necessary context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention any parameter names or their roles, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from parameter names and types. This is insufficient for correct invocation, especially for lat/lon/radius/hours/min_magnitude.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Recent earthquakes near a coordinate (USGS feed)' which clearly identifies the resource (earthquakes) and action (listing recent ones). The mention of USGS adds source credibility. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like earth.events or earth.now, which might serve similar purposes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases. Given the large number of sibling tools, this omission leaves the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists output categories but does not mention whether the tool performs multiple API calls, has rate limits, requires authentication, or other operational characteristics beyond being a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it front-loads the purpose effectively. However, given the tool's complexity and parameter count, more structured information is needed to be truly useful.
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?
The description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain optional parameters, output format, or how the composite data is assembled. Agents lack sufficient context to effectively select or invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage on parameters, and the tool description provides no information about the parameters beyond their names. The agent cannot determine the meaning of 'hours' or 'min_magnitude' without additional context, severely limiting effective invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides composite situational awareness for a coordinate, listing specific data types (timezone, local time, sunrise/sunset, nearby quakes, current weather). This conveys a distinct purpose from sibling tools but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that cover individual components (e.g., timezone.lookup, quakes.recent, weather.zip). The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the function. It omits details about synchronous/asynchronous behavior, authentication, rate limits, coordinate limits, or output format. Very little transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but lacks structure. It could benefit from separating purpose, parameters, and output, while remaining brief. Currently it is under-specified.
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?
Without an output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., formatted address, components). It does not cover common use cases, error handling, or limitations, leaving the tool's behavior incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds minimal meaning beyond 'coordinate'. It does not specify expected units (e.g., decimal degrees) or valid ranges for lat/lon, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: reverse geocode a coordinate to a labeled address. It implicitly distinguishes from forward geocoding (geocode.address) and other geo tools, but lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like geo.nearby.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only provides the basic purpose without context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'headless-browser screenshot' implying automation but does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or the fact that the tool blocks ads by default (indicated by default 'blockAds: true'). Minimal transparency beyond basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but may be too brief. It front-loads the primary action but omits important details, making it efficient yet incomplete.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format beyond 'base64 image + size metadata', error handling, or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (30%), and the description adds no parameter information. The tool has 10 parameters, but the description does not explain any of them, leaving the agent to rely on an incomplete schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (screenshot) and resource (URL) with a specific verb 'Take'. It mentions the return type (base64 image + size metadata). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'url.render' or 'ai.describe-image', though none seem to duplicate the exact function.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use. The description lacks contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the tool returns FEC candidate IDs and links to another API, but omits critical details like authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether results are read-only. The agent has no insight into side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. However, the list of filters is not structured for quick scanning (no grouping or formatting). Could be more concise while adding value.
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?
For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits pagination details (though defaults are in schema), required parameters (none, but not stated), and output structure. The agent lacks essential context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description lists parameter names and some hints (e.g., 'q (name)', 'office (P/S/H)') but does not explain expected formats, constraints, or relationships beyond the schema. For example, 'candidateId' is not described, and 'hasRaised' lacks context. The description adds minimal meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches US federal political candidates via OpenFEC and lists filter fields. The verb 'Search' and resource 'candidates' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gov.fec-committee, though the resource is distinct.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., gov.fec-committee). It lists filters but does not explain scenarios or prerequisites. The agent receives no information about when to prefer this over similar FEC tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response structure is. For a search tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise and front-loads the main purpose, but it omits necessary details about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return format, pagination, and parameter usage. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter ('agency') has a description in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters like 'q', 'type', 'since', 'until', or 'limit', leaving the user to infer their usage from the schema which is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'US Federal Register documents', listing document types. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'gov.federal-register-recent' which may have overlapping functionality.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the subject matter but fails to disclose behavioral traits like pagination, default behavior, or any constraints (e.g., only currently transmitted treaties).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, the structure is minimal and lacks any breakdown or detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter interactions, output format, or typical usage patterns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters (limit, number, offset, suffix, congress). The agent cannot infer what each parameter does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns international treaties transmitted to the US Senate, using specific verb+resource (treaties). It distinguishes from sibling congress tools (bills, amendments, etc.) by focusing on treaties.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, required prerequisites, or preferred usage contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions dataset size but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. With no annotations provided, the description should carry this burden but falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that effectively front-load the purpose. It is efficient but could be structured with more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
Despite the complexity of 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description only provides result field details. It lacks necessary context for effective tool invocation, such as parameter descriptions and usage constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 11 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter meaning or usage. The only parameter-related info is the list of fields in the results, not the filter/input parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as returning OSHA-investigated workplace accident reports from the DOL Open Data Portal, listing specific fields and noting a dataset size of ~165k records. This differentiates it from sibling tools like gov.osha-inspections and gov.osha-violations.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gov.osha-inspections or gov.osha-violations. There are no examples, exclusions, or contextual hints about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should convey behavioral traits. It only states filtering and ordering, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, pagination, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, concise, front-loads purpose and lists filters. No redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema, low parameter coverage, and sibling overlap, description lacks details on output fields, ordering behavior, and differentiation from similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (20%), and description maps parameters to filters but does not explain enum meanings or parameter constraints beyond what schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it provides FDA food recall enforcement reports, newest first, with filters. However, sibling 'gov.fda-recalls' exists without differentiation, making the exact scope slightly ambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., other FDA recall tools). No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions ordering (newest first) and filtering capability, but omits details like data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or whether results are limited. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key filters. No wasted words, but could benefit from structured bullet points for clarity.
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?
The description does not mention output format or any metadata like data source, update frequency, or default limit. With no output schema and 4 parameters, the description is too minimal for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists three of four parameters (drug, classification, status) but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide input format details for 'drug'. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description partially compensates but still lacks full semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists FDA drug recall enforcement reports sorted by newest first, and mentions filtering by drug name, classification, and status. However, it does not differentiate from sibling FDA tools like gov.fda-drug-events or gov.fda-device-events.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The description implies usage for recall data but does not address when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Search' implying read-only, but does not confirm read-only behavior, mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination defaults, or what happens when no results are found. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be improved by structuring the filter list more clearly (e.g., bullet points or separating parameter groups).
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and high parameter count (11 parameters with 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, pagination behavior, or any defaults. The mention of 'OpenFEC' hints at the data source, but more detail is needed for comprehensive context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 11 parameters. The description only lists 9 parameter names but does not explain their meanings, allowed values, or defaults. The missing parameters 'page' and 'perPage' are not mentioned. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the raw parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb 'Search', identifies the resource 'US federal political committees', and lists committee types (PACs, super PACs, etc.) and the data source (OpenFEC). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gov.fec-candidate or gov.fec-contributions.
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?
The description lists filter parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gov.fec-contributions or gov.fec-expenditures. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or preferred use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions the limit of 100 IPs but omits details on rate limits, error handling, response structure, or what happens if some IPs are invalid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence, no unnecessary words. However, it may be too minimal, but conciseness is a strength here.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks return format, error behaviors, and any usage hints beyond the IP count limit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no detail beyond the parameter name. It does not specify IP format (IPv4/IPv6), validation, or usage constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (bulk geolocate) and resource (IPs) with a limit of 100 per call. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'geo.ip' which likely handles single IP geolocation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'geo.ip' for single IPs. No when-not-to-use or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions the data source. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, response structure, or any side effects. The agent needs more context for a safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It provides the essential purpose but omits important context. It could be expanded with usage notes or behavioral details without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to specify return format, pagination, error handling, or the scope of case law coverage. The agent would lack crucial information for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17% (only the 'court' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no parameter semantics; it simply names the source. Parameters like 'q', 'filedAfter', 'filedBefore', etc., lack explanatory text, requiring the agent to infer meaning from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches 'US federal + state case law' using a specific source ('CourtListener / Free Law Project'), which is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like law.case-verify or law.docket-search.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many legal sibling tools (e.g., law.case-verify, law.docket-search) but no mention of when this search is appropriate or when another tool should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Unified academic paper search.' It omits details such as deduplication across sources, result ordering, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too brief for a tool with multiple parameters and sources.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not provide sufficient context about searching behavior, pagination, or source-specific nuances.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'since' and 'sources' have schema descriptions). The tool description adds no further explanation for parameters 'q' or 'limit', failing to compensate for the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Unified academic paper search across arXiv + PubMed + Semantic Scholar.' It specifies the verb 'search', the resource 'academic papers', and the distinct sources, distinguishing it from siblings like paper.doi-lookup.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like paper.doi-lookup or even web search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions idempotency and uniqueness per pubkey, but lacks details on mutation behavior, required permissions, error handling, or return values. Significant gaps for a registration tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences are concise and front-loaded, but the terse style leaves out critical information. It is efficient but could include more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the complexity of 9 parameters with nested objects, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain what the registration does, success/failure behavior, or prerequisites, leaving major gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 9 parameters (3 required) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no explanation for any parameter, such as the meaning of 'metadata', 'payTo', 'capabilities', or 'status' enum values. This forces the agent to guess parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (register/update) and the target (calling agent in agent-to-agent marketplace). It adds specificity with 'one listing per pubkey' and 'idempotent', distinguishing it from siblings like discover, profile, and review.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for registering or updating your own agent listing, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like discover or profile. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, though context provides sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It lists return fields but omits behavioral traits such as error handling for invalid domains, potential delays, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation safety net, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no extraneous words. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks completeness on error scenarios, input validation, and any potential limitations, which would be valuable for an agent's decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 only mentions 'domain' implicitly as the input, but does not explain the parameter format, valid values, or examples. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type declaration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs RDAP/WHOIS lookups for domains, listing specific return fields (registrar, creation/expiry, nameservers, status codes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dns.lookup and tld.info by specifying the protocol and data returned.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dns.lookup for DNS records, tld.info for TLD info). No context on prerequisites, rate limits, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions ordering by distance but does not disclose other behaviors such as response format, pagination, empty result handling, or authentication requirements. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, optional filters, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks information on response structure, default values, and effective use of optional filters like type and country.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 29% (country and scheduled_service have descriptions). The description does not explain the purpose of lat, lon, radius_km, limit, or type, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds airports near a coordinate, ordered by distance. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'airport.lookup' which likely retrieves a specific airport by identifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the name and description imply it is for proximity searches, contrasting with 'airport.lookup'. A note about preferring 'airport.lookup' for known codes would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions it is 'backed by an upstream LLM' and lists return fields, but it does not disclose potential delays, token limits, or whether the webpage is fetched asynchronously. With no annotations, more detail would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by a clear bullet list of outputs. No extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a simple tool but lacks details on supported webpage types, language support, error handling, or any limitations. Given no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only 'instruction' has a schema description). The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond implying 'url' is a webpage. The 'instruction' parameter is mentioned in schema but not in the description, missing an opportunity to clarify usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it summarizes a webpage and lists output components. However, it does not differentiate from similar AI tools like 'ai.extract' or 'ai.describe-image', which could lead to ambiguity.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states it summarizes a webpage, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. Lacks necessary transparency for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the core action.
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?
No output schema, and the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., station IDs, distances, names). Incomplete for a simple geospatial search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description adds no meaning to parameters (lat, lon, radius_km, limit), leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'find', the resource 'NOAA GHCN-Daily climate stations', and the condition 'near a coordinate'. Distinguishes from sibling 'climate.station-history' by focusing on proximity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a use case ('long-term climate-history lookups'), but does not specify when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It only mentions filtering capabilities but does not disclose read-only nature, response format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the subject and key functionality. It is concise and efficient, though it could benefit from slightly more structure.
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?
For a 4-parameter data retrieval tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks explanation of report scope, output details, and limitations, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (species and reaction have descriptions). The description adds that filtering by these is possible, but does not provide examples or format for undocumented parameters (drug, limit), thus not fully compensating for the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's specific purpose: accessing FDA animal/veterinary adverse event reports. It distinguishes from sibling FDA tools like gov.fda-drug-events by specifying the animal/veterinary domain.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites, relying solely on the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context: only ordering (newest first) and filtering. Missing details on pagination, rate limits, data scope, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with core functionality, no extraneous words. Efficient and clear.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits return format, pagination, authentication, and error handling, leaving the AI agent with incomplete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (device and problem have descriptions; limit and manufacturer do not). The description merely paraphrases the schema ('filter by device, manufacturer, or product code') without adding specifics beyond what the schema already states, failing to compensate for missing descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool returns FDA medical device adverse event reports (MAUDE) sorted newest first, with filters by device, manufacturer, or product code. Distinct from sibling tools like gov.fda-drug-events.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gov.fda-drug-events). The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or when to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, pagination, or response format. Only mentions codelists exist, not how retrieval behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with examples; concise and to the point. Could be structured better with bullet points, but no redundant 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?
Description is insufficient: no output schema exists, and description does not specify return format, whether it returns one list per call or all lists, or any error cases. For a lookup tool, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but parameter is a simple enum with 33 values. Description adds context that these are codelists for filters, listing examples. However, it does not detail what each code list contains or how to interpret values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool returns USAJobs reference codelists, with specific examples of lookup tables and mentions it feeds federal-search filters. This distinguishes it from sibling job.federal-search.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for obtaining filter values before job.federal-search, but does not state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only search, but does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, or authorization needs. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that concisely lists filters. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could benefit from structure like bullet points, but no redundancy.
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?
With 13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description lacks details on return format, pagination, error handling, and required permissions. Incomplete for a complex search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 lists filter fields (e.g., keyword, positionTitle, locationName), which adds value, but does not explain parameter formats or meanings (e.g., jobCategoryCode). Incomplete for a tool with 13 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Search current US federal job postings via USAJobs', clearly stating the verb and resource. It lists filtering parameters, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like job.federal-codes.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, when to use job.federal-search over job.federal-codes is unclear. No when-not or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions documentId and URL pattern but omits details like read-only nature, error handling, authorization needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. This is insufficient for safe autonomous use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with context upfront. Every word adds value. No redundancy or filler. Perfectly structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool without output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a hint about the response structure (documentId, URL pattern). However, it lacks details on error responses, pagination, and the full data returned. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'bbl' described). The description adds no information about 'limit' or 'offset', which are standard pagination parameters but their meaning and usage are not explained. Low schema coverage requires more compensation from description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'NYC ACRIS deed + mortgage history for a BBL', specifying the verb (get history), resource (deed+mortgage), and scope (BBL). It distinguishes from siblings like property.nyc-parcel-lookup, property.nyc-permits, etc., which cover different data types.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Given several sibling property tools, the absence of usage context is a gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the data source and components but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or whether the tool is read-only. It adds context but insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a dash-separated list, concisely stating purpose and components. It is front-loaded with key information, though it could be structured more clearly.
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?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, parameter usage, or typical use cases, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter, meaning the agent receives no guidance on how to use sort, fields, filter, pageSize, or pageNumber.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns the Daily Treasury Statement operating cash balance, specifies the components (TGA, T&L, Fed deposits), and mentions 'liquidity-tracking + macro signals' for usage context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like treasury.debt and treasury.exchange-rates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for liquidity tracking and macro signals, but does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to, nor does it mention alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a read-only operation ('Fetch') but lacks details on error handling for invalid IDs, limitations on claims retrieval, or any side effects. The mention of 'maxClaimsPerProperty' default is in the schema, not description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences. The first sentence defines the core purpose, and the second adds context about scale and licensing. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers what the entity record contains (labels, descriptions, claims, sitelinks) and scale. However, it omits details on output format, parameter effects, and common pitfalls, leaving a knowledgeable user to infer from the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (id and languages have descriptions). The tool description adds no explicit parameter explanations beyond hinting at language selection. The 'includeClaims' and 'maxClaimsPerProperty' parameters are not addressed, leaving semantics unclear without schema inspection.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Fetch a Wikidata entity' with specific resource identification (Q42, P31, etc.) and outlines the contained data (labels, descriptions, claims, sitelinks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'wikipedia.summary' by focusing on structured knowledge-graph records rather than article summaries.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools for specific use cases like textual summaries or broader searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output (summary with thumbnail URL) but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or error handling. The agent cannot determine if the tool is read-only or if it has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence. It avoids fluff but could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. Front-loading is fine as the purpose is clear upfront.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain return structure. It mentions summary and thumbnail URL but does not clarify the format (text, JSON, etc.) or error conditions. For a simple tool, it is minimally sufficient but lacks completeness for agent to handle all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond stating the tool returns a summary, missing details like required parameter (title) or default for lang. Baseline is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a Wikipedia article summary with a thumbnail URL, differentiating it from siblings like wikidata.entity. It specifies the resource (Wikipedia article) and the action (summary), leaving no ambiguity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wikidata.entity, search.web). The description does not specify prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit directions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. It only states what data is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence. All words are informative with no fluff. Perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core functionality. However, lacking behavioral and usage context makes it minimally complete. Output format not specified, but no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds output context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly lists the data returned (country, region, city, lat/lon, timezone, ASN) for an IP address, making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ipinfo.bulk (bulk lookup) and geocoding tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose behaviors like pagination, response format, rate limits, or data freshness. It only states the data source and filter options, leaving significant gaps for agent usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, and the second adds filter capability. Every word adds value.
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?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover pagination, sort options, or response structure, leaving the agent underinformed for proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains 3 of 7 parameters (congress, type, date range) but omits sort, limit, offset, which are crucial for controlling output. Missing parameter semantics hamper correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides 'Latest US Congressional bill summaries (CRS-authored, attached to specific bill versions) via Congress.gov.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gov.congress-bill (bill details) and defines the scope precisely.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions filtering by congress, type, and date range, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus others (e.g., gov.congress-bill for full text). Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and the description lacks behavioral disclosures such as read-only nature, rate limits, or prerequisites; only states what the tool does without addressing side effects or safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose and a concrete usage hint; every sentence is informative and efficient.
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?
Given the seven parameters and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too brief; it leaves many parameters undocumented and no information about return values or pagination, making it insufficient for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Describes only three parameters (type, congress, number) out of seven; the remaining four (limit, offset, toDate, fromDate) are not explained, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not fully compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it is for US Congressional amendments lookup or list from Congress.gov, specifies the three types (hamdt, samdt, suamdt), and explains how to retrieve a single amendment with congress+type+number.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage by mentioning types and the single amendment pattern, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide context for listing vs. single lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the tool retrieves 'issues' and allows date filtering, but fails to clarify whether it returns a list of issue identifiers, full transcripts, or metadata. It also omits details about pagination (the offset parameter), rate limits, or error behavior for invalid dates. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect invocation or misinterpretation of results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and resource. It is concise with no extraneous words. However, it may be too brief given the lack of parameter explanation and behavioral detail, slightly reducing its efficiency for agent understanding.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies the resource but does not specify the structure of the output (e.g., list of issues, full text, metadata fields). The offset parameter, likely for pagination, is not explained. For a simple date-filtered retrieval tool, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently use it without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly mentions the three date parameters (year, month, day) as filters, adding meaning beyond the bare schema definitions with zero descriptions. However, it does not explain the offset parameter, which is non-obvious (likely pagination). With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves one parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving 'Daily Congressional Record issues' and specifies the source (Congress.gov) and the resource type (official US House+Senate proceedings transcript). It also mentions filtering by year/month/day. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gov.congress-bill or gov.congress-member, which are about different aspects of congressional information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the filtering capability (by year/month/day), implying its use when one needs Congressional Record issues for specific dates. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives for other congressional data, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination parameters (limit, offset), rate limits, authentication, data freshness, or behavior on empty results. The description only covers what data is filtered, not how the tool behaves operationally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of ~20 words, front-loaded with the key identifier 'EPA Facility Registry Service'. It is highly concise with no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main filters (state, name, program) but misses the pagination parameters (limit, offset). It is adequate for basic understanding but lacks completeness regarding result structure and optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 60%, and the description adds value by clarifying that 'name' is a prefix (not exact match) and gives examples for 'program' (RCRA, NPDES, TRI). However, it omits explanation of 'limit' and 'offset' parameters, which are in the schema but lack descriptions. Overall, it provides moderate additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides EPA-regulated facilities from the Facility Registry Service, with filters for state, name prefix, and program acronym. It is specific about the resource and main parameters, though it does not explicitly include a verb like 'search' or 'list', making it clear but not fully explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its specific EPA focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for looking up EPA facilities by state, name, or program. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates real-time data and spatial filtering but omits details on authentication, rate limits, response format, error handling, or what happens when no data is found. The minimal behavioral context is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently conveys essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality and default parameters but lacks details on the response format, pagination, or error conditions. It is minimally viable but not fully comprehensive for an agent to use without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds value by explaining the default variable codes for streamflow, gage height, and water temperature, which are not fully documented in the schema. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or clarify the meaning of lat/lon beyond implicit spatial context. Schema coverage is 40%, so the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves real-time USGS NWIS stream/river/groundwater readings within a bounding box around a given lat/lon. It specifies the data source, type of readings, and default variables, making the purpose unambiguous. No sibling tool performs a similar function, so differentiation is inherent.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or limitations. It simply describes what it does without addressing when it is appropriate to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses real-time behavior ('Live'), returned attributes (headlines, source, age, breaking flag), and the effect of the 'freshness' parameter. Missing details include authentication, rate limits, error behavior, and pagination specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence densely packs the tool's purpose and output, while the second efficiently clarifies a key parameter. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and a key parameter. However, it omits details like return format, sorting, error handling, and full parameter behavior, leaving some gaps for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (40%). The description adds value by explaining the 'freshness' enum values ('pd=past day, pw, pm, py'). Other parameters (q, count, offset, country) remain under-explained, with 'q' only described as 'News query' in schema and description adding nothing beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Live news search' and mentions returned fields (publisher source, relative age, breaking flag). It distinguishes from general search and other news siblings by specifying 'recent headlines' and 'current events,' though explicit sibling differentiation is absent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description advises 'Use for current events and monitoring,' providing a clear context of use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool's scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only query by stating 'Filter' and 'Returns', but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The return format is partially described, but depth is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise, with the main topic front-loaded ('NYC HPD housing violations'). It efficiently combines purpose, filter options, and return fields in a few sentences. Minor improvement could separate conceptual purpose from parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields (address, apartment, story, dates, status, narrative). It covers key filtering parameters. However, it omits standard pagination behavior (limit/offset) and error conditions, but for a list tool with low complexity, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning for classCode (A=least severe through C=immediately hazardous) and currentStatusOnly (open violations), clarifying their purpose. However, it does not explain bbl, address, limit, or offset, leaving those to the schema, which lacks descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as providing NYC HPD housing violations, with specific filtering options. It distinguishes from sibling tools like property.nyc-permits by focusing on violations. However, it could be more explicit in stating the primary action (e.g., 'Retrieve') rather than just describing the data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions filtering by bbl, address, classCode, and currentStatusOnly, which indicates when to use the tool (when violation data is needed). However, it does not provide context on when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings, such as property.nyc-deed-history for deed information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to mention any limitations, data source reliability, or side effects (e.g., what happens if no station is found). The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.
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?
Without an output schema, the description should outline the return format or data structure. It does not. Moreover, it omits details about the 'nearest station' logic or the time period for predictions, leaving gaps for a tool with four parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameters (radius_km, hours) beyond their names. Lat/lon are obvious, but the meaning and impact of radius_km and hours are left to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides NOAA tide predictions for the nearest tide station to a given coordinate. It uses specific verbs and a defined resource, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, since there are no sibling tools for tides, the usage context is implicitly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it is a 'paginated list,' which implies a read-only, batch retrieval operation. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or response structure. It is adequate for a simple list but could be more informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral details without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose. However, it lacks details about the response structure, any limits on the list, or how pagination works. For a straightforward list, this is acceptable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema shows one optional 'page' parameter with a default of 1, but the schema description coverage is 0% (the description field in the schema is just 'Manufacturers'). The tool description does not explain the purpose of the page parameter or its expected values, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a 'Paginated list of all NHTSA-registered vehicle manufacturers (vPIC).' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('manufacturers'), and the context of NHTSA and vPIC distinguishes it from sibling tools like vehicle.models or vehicle.vin-decode.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for listing all manufacturers but does not mention when to choose it over other vehicle-related tools, nor does it provide any conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states a read-like operation ('list'), but does not disclose any potential behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with 10 words, front-loading the core action ('List all models'). Every word is necessary with no redundancy.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values, pagination, or data structure. It only says 'list all models', which is too vague for an agent to understand the full output. Incomplete for a tool with missing schema details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'make' and 'modelYear' in context ('offered by a make in a given model year') but does not specify format, constraints, or valid values. Insufficient compensation for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'models', and the constraints 'offered by a make in a given model year'. It distinguishes from siblings like vehicle.profile or vehicle.manufacturers by specifying the exact action on models.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving models by make and year, but does not explicitly state when to use this over other vehicle tools like vehicle.vin-decode or vehicle.recalls. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only mentions data source but lacks details on rate limits, caching, or required authentication, leaving behavioral traits opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter, but lacks output schema or mention of return format; acceptable given tool simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'zip' parameter. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, meeting baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool returns 'Current US weather for a ZIP code' from a specific source (NOAA NWS), distinguishing it from sibling tools like weather.alerts.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., weather.alerts, other weather tools) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals one behavioral trait: source language auto-detection if omitted. However, since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behaviors. It does not mention rate limits, auth needs, supported languages, text length limits beyond schema, or what happens on failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word adds value without redundancy.
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?
The description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., the translated text). It also lacks details on error conditions, supported language codes, or text length considerations beyond the schema's maxLength.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (targetLanguage and sourceLanguage have descriptions, text does not). The description adds minimal new info: it clarifies that sourceLanguage is auto-detected if omitted, which repeats the schema description for that parameter. The text parameter lacks any description in both schema and tool description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Translate text into a target language.' It uses a specific verb ('Translate') and resource ('text') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai.describe-image, ai.extract, ai.screenshot, and ai.summarize, which have different functions.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. It simply states the function, leaving the agent to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the data categories. It lacks behavioral details such as data freshness, error handling (e.g., invalid ZIP codes), or any side effects. The description does not sufficiently disclose behavior beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the types of data returned. It is concise without being overly brief, though it could include more structural cues.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about the data returned. However, it lacks mention of the data source (Census ACS) and time period, which would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, meaning the zip parameter lacks a description. The tool description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning 'ZIP/ZCTA' but does not clarify the expected format or constraints (e.g., 5-digit US ZIP codes).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves US Census ACS 5-year demographics for a ZIP code, listing specific data categories (population, income, housing, education). This is distinct from any sibling tool, as no other tool provides census demographic data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for demographic lookups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned but fails to mention geographic coverage limitations (likely only US/territories), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a read-only data tool, this lack of scope information reduces transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output without unnecessary words. Every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core inputs and outputs. However, it omits important context such as whether the data is global or US-only, update frequency, and data source caveats, leaving some completeness gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not provide any additional meaning for the 'lat' and 'lon' parameters beyond their existence. It omits details like decimal degrees format or any special constraints not already in the schema (min/max).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the source (NREL NSRDB), input (lat/lon), and specific output metrics (DNI, GHI, tilted irradiance) with units. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which cover solar resource data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the description implies it is for solar resource averages at a location. Given the sibling list, there are no alternative tools for this data, so the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility. It discloses the API source and the two lookup modes, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, pagination behavior, or the structure of results (e.g., returns full bill details or just IDs). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. First sentence establishes purpose and scope, second sentence defines the type enum. Every sentence adds value.
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?
With 8 parameters, 0 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, default behaviors, filtering logic, or edge cases (e.g., what happens if congress is omitted). For a moderately complex tool, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies the 'type' enum values and implicitly highlights 'congress', 'type', and 'number' as key look-up parameters. However, parameters like 'sort', 'limit', 'offset', 'fromDate', 'toDate' are not explained, though their names are somewhat intuitive. The description partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is for 'US Congressional bill lookup' with two use cases (specific bill by congress/type/number or filtered list) and lists all bill types with abbreviations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gov.bill-summaries or gov.congress-member.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the two modes (lookup vs filtered list) and references the API source, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., gov.bill-summaries for summaries, gov.congress-amendment for amendments). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors like pagination and response format; it only mentions filters and row count, missing important details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with clear purpose and filter list; no fluff, front-loaded with identity and scale.
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?
For a data retrieval tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description only scratches the surface; missing pagination, sorting behavior, and return field structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Describes about 60% of the parameters (e.g., committeeId, recipient fields, amount/date ranges, cycle), adding context beyond the schema, but omits page, perPage, and sort parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as providing FEC Schedule B itemized disbursements, distinct from sibling tools like contributions or totals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use over alternatives, but the name and description imply its domain; lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It only mentions 'Largest-amount first within the date window,' but fails to state that the tool is read-only, does not require authentication, or describe pagination behavior. Important behavioral traits like rate limits or result structure are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant information.
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?
With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential details such as output format, pagination, and result count. It gives only a brief behavioral trait. The tool is relatively complex, and the description does not sufficiently equip an agent to use it correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 63%, meaning some parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The description adds overall context about sorting and date filtering but does not elaborate on individual parameters. It provides marginal added value beyond what the schema already offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'federal awards (contracts, grants, loans, direct payments)' via USAspending.gov. It clearly distinguishes the tool from other gov.* siblings, as no other sibling deals with awards.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for searching federal awards and notes the default sorting order, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. With no competing sibling tools, the lack of exclusions is acceptable, but providing more contextual triggers would improve guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists returned fields (case name, court, docket number, dates, judge, docket URL), which gives some transparency. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination limits, error handling, or whether it returns only recent dockets. It states 'Returns ...' but no detail on absence of results or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and key input options. It is front-loaded with the main action and then details. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and return fields but lacks completeness on query syntax, error behavior, pagination, and handling of no results. It is minimally adequate for a moderately complex search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 6 parameters with 50% description coverage (q, court, docketNumber have descriptions). The main description adds context by explaining the relationship between parameters (e.g., 'or exact docketNumber'). However, filedAfter, filedBefore, and page are not individually described beyond 'filed date range' in the description, and page is not mentioned. The description partially compensates for missing schema descriptions but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches US federal court dockets from the RECAP/PACER archive, using full-text query, optional court and date range, or exact docket number. It specifies the resource (dockets) and action (search). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like law.case-search, which might search case law rather than dockets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by listing search options (full-text, court, date range, exact docket number). It provides context on how to use the tool, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., law.case-search for case law, law.opinion for opinions). No 'when not to use' or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses the chronological ordering and lack of filter support, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it omits details about pagination behavior (beyond limit/offset) or what the investigation data contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences convey the essential information without any superfluous content. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality and constraints. However, it lacks details about the return format or the structure of investigation objects, which would aid in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters beyond what is implied by common knowledge. This adds no value to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists NHTSA open vehicle investigations in chronological order (newest first), and explicitly notes that filters (make/model/year) are not supported. This distinguishes it from potential sibling tools like vehicle.recalls or vehicle.complaints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context that it's a chronological feed and that filters are unsupported, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like vehicle.recalls or vehicle.complaints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions using Claude Haiku and the output, but does not disclose potential delays, accuracy limitations, or side effects (though likely read-only). Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, efficient with no fluff. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description could be more specific about what 'structured details' entails. It covers formats, size limit, and model, but omits error scenarios or access requirements beyond the schema's URI format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL' and 'Optional focus hint').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Describe'), the resource ('an image'), supported formats, size limit, and what is returned ('caption + structured details'). It is distinct from sibling AI tools like ai.screenshot or ai.extract.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ai.extract for text extraction). The description implies usage for image description but does not specify exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the data source (Open Food Facts, CC0) and lists returned fields, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, rate limits, or any side effects beyond the lookup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that efficiently communicates purpose and return fields. It is front-loaded with the primary function and lists key outputs without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of a single-parameter lookup, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the data source, and the return fields. It lacks explicit error handling details but is largely complete for a straightforward query tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the sole parameter 'barcode' with a description '6-14 digit UPC/EAN.' The tool description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating 'by UPC/EAN barcode.' With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Food product lookup by UPC/EAN barcode' via Open Food Facts. It lists specific return fields like product name, brand, ingredients, allergens, etc., making it distinct from sibling tools like barcode.generate or nutrition.food.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. It simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses it's a search tool that reads historical data, but omits details on pagination (offset/limit exist), rate limits, data freshness, or whether filters are exact or fuzzy. 'Raw OData filter clauses' suggests advanced filtering but no syntax is clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with efficient wording: first states purpose and source, second lists filters. No redundant information, front-loaded with key actions.
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?
No output schema and 9 parameters (0 required). Description covers overall purpose and main filters but lacks return format, pagination behavior, available fields, and rate limits. For a tool with this complexity, more details are needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'state', 'city', 'zip', 'estabName', and 'filter' broadly, but leaves 'sort', 'fields', 'limit', 'offset' undefined. Users cannot infer correct values for undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches OSHA inspection records, specifies the data source (US Department of Labor Open Data Portal), mentions scale (~5M historical inspections), and lists filter types. It distinguishes from siblings like gov.osha-accidents by being inspections-specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies usage scenarios by mentioning filters (location, establishment name, OData clauses) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool returns plain text and metadata, implying a read operation, but does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if both or neither parameter is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple ID-based fetch tool, the description covers the input requirements and return type (plain text + metadata). With no output schema, it provides enough context for the agent to understand the response, though details on metadata structure are omitted.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions. The description adds significant value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of the two parameters ('Supply exactly one'), which is a key constraint not captured in the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches full text of a US court opinion by CourtListener ID or citation, and returns plain text plus metadata. It distinguishes itself from sibling law tools like law.case-search by specifying direct retrieval by identifier, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to supply exactly one of opinionId or citation, which is a clear usage rule. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as law.case-search for finding opinions without an exact ID or citation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description indicates a stateless computation with no side effects, which is appropriate, but it does not add any behavioral details beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and inputs.
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?
With no output schema and limited parameter descriptions, the description omits critical details such as return format, time zone handling, and precision, making it incomplete for a compute tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 33% (only 'date' has a description). The description mentions 'coord + date' but does not elaborate on lat/lon ranges, formats, or constraints, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb 'compute' with defined resources (sunrise, sunset, solar noon, twilights) and inputs (coord + date). It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which are astronomical calculations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for solar-related computations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses data frequency and components but omits behavioral details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The description provides moderate transparency but lacks depth on how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads purpose and key details. Every piece of information is relevant and concise, with no wasted words.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides an overview of data content but lacks guidance on how to filter, sort, or paginate. An agent would struggle to use the tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (20%), yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain the purpose of sort, fields, pageSize, or pageNumber. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves US National Debt data daily, specifying components (total public debt, held-by-public, intragovernmental holdings) and time range (every weekday since 1993). It distinguishes from siblings like treasury.cash or treasury.monthly-statement by focusing on debt specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for historical debt data but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like treasury.cash or treasury.exchange-rates. No exclusions or trade-offs are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It correctly describes the output fields, but does not disclose that the tool fetches the URL, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The mutation status is implied as read-only, but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part is informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, listing the returned fields (title, description, image, site name) provides good context. However, it could mention that it makes a network request to fetch the page.
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 sole parameter 'url' has a schema type and format but no description. The description adds meaning by stating it's a URL to extract metadata from, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool extracts Open Graph/Twitter Card metadata (title, description, image, site name) from a URL, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like url.clean and url.map implicitly, but does not explicitly contrast them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or limitations. The description does not provide use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only query (returns data) and lists returned fields, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, mention pagination behavior (limit/offset), or disclose any side effects. The behavioral transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no superfluous words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists return fields. Every sentence provides value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It omits details on pagination (limit/offset), data range, and how to interpret the flags. It provides the core what but lacks the operational context needed for a fully informed invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for three parameters (make, model, modelYear) by stating 'by make/model/year', but does not explain limit and offset, which are in the schema without descriptions. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves pagination parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns NHTSA consumer complaints by make/model/year and lists the specific fields returned (incident date, component, summary, crash/injury/fatality flags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vehicle.recalls or vehicle.investigations by specifying the data source and type of data.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vehicle.recalls or vehicle.investigations. It does not mention any prerequisites, required permissions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching a URL and extraction but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error handling, which are critical for a tool making network requests.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the action first ('Fetch a URL and extract typed data'), and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, network request), the description is too brief. It omits important context such as return format, error behavior, content type support, and any limitations, making it incomplete for an agent to use safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds context that the schema is user-supplied and describes desired output. However, this adds minimal value beyond the schema itself, and the 'url' parameter lacks any description in both the schema and the tool description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches a URL and extracts typed data based on a user-supplied JSON Schema. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying a unique action of structured data extraction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use when you need a structured payload conforming to your own shape,' providing clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for basic decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions inputs and outputs but lacks information on authorization, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and efficiently communicates all necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's functionality well by listing input criteria and output fields. It could be improved by mentioning pagination (limit/offset) and error handling, but it is largely sufficient for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 57%. The description groups parameters into lookup categories (e.g., name, certificate) and describes return fields, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain defaults, constraints, or all parameters like limit and offset.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool looks up FDIC-insured US banks, specifies lookup methods (fuzzy name, certificate, RSSD ID, state), and lists return fields. It is distinct from sibling tools which are about other entities like aircraft or airports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (for bank lookups) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparison with other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the output format (raw GIF bytes, base64) but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or authentication needs. With no annotations, the burden is on the description, and it partially meets it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and output format. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the core purpose is clear, the description lacks explanations for the majority of parameters and does not cover behavioral constraints. Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, more detail is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides for endDate. Other parameters (template, seconds, fps, width, height) are not explained, leaving an agent uncertain about their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool renders an animated countdown GIF to a specific ISO-8601 timestamp, with output format clarified as raw GIF bytes in base64. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when a countdown GIF is needed, but provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No explicit usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral info. It mentions 'public DNS-over-HTTPS resolvers', indicating use of external resolvers. However, no details on rate limits, caching, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff. Efficiently states purpose, but could benefit from slightly more detail on usage without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with 3 parameters, no output schema. Description covers basic functionality but lacks details on return format, error handling, or prerequisites. Adequate for minimal use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions. Description adds clarification for 'host' (fully-qualified domain name) and 'types' (comma-separated list), but 'resolver' lacks description beyond enum values. No extra meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'DNS records via public DNS-over-HTTPS resolvers' clearly states the action (lookup) and resource (DNS records), and distinguishes from sibling tools like domain.whois or tls.cert-info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., domain.whois). The description implies it's for basic DNS resolution, but lacks exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions filtering and curated fields but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or response structure beyond listing fields. Adequate but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence packed with useful information. Not overly verbose, but could be better structured with bullet points for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of filters and return categories. However, more detail on output structure or pagination would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains ownership and degreePredominant enums and lists major filters, but omits parameters like 'q', 'fields', 'page', 'perPage' despite schema having defaults and constraints. Adds some value but not all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches US colleges and universities via the Department of Education College Scorecard. It lists filters and return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like edu.school-lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for college search but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists the return content (metrics with period details) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error handling (e.g., invalid ticker). Since no annotations are provided, more transparency would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly improved with bullet points for clarity, though not necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the metrics returned and period details, but without an output schema, it lacks details on the response structure (e.g., JSON format). It also does not specify behavior for missing tickers or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description lists the same metric keys, adding little new information beyond reinforcing the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool returns curated XBRL financial metrics for a US public company by stock ticker, listing specific metrics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like finance.company-profile (company overview) and finance.sec-filings (raw filings).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for quick access to key financial metrics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like finance.sec-filings or finance.company-profile. No guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses data sources but omits important behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, pagination, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and includes use cases. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.
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?
Despite a clear overview, the description lacks details on output format, pagination, and data limits, which are critical for a tool merging multiple data sources. The absence of output schema heightens this gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% (ticker and formType described). The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for moderate coverage but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides a 'Company 360' that merges SEC filings, XBRL fundamentals, and insider transactions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'finance.sec-filings' and 'finance.insider-trades'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists use cases ('Equity research, due diligence, monitoring') and implies it is a comprehensive alternative to separate tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Mentions data source and license (LocationIQ, OSM/ODbL), which is useful, but omits rate limits, query restrictions, or accuracy details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with action. No fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple forward geocoding tool with 3 params, no output schema, and a reverse sibling, description is largely sufficient. Could mention return format but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (two out of three params have descriptions). Description does not add extra meaning beyond what schema provides for 'q' and 'country'; limit param still lacks explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Forward geocode a free-text address to a coordinate' with verb (geocode), resource (address), and output (coordinate). Distinguishes from sibling 'geocode.reverse'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., geocode.reverse). Lacks context about geocoding scope or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states it's a chronological feed and the types. It does not disclose if the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on empty results. This is insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that effectively conveys purpose and use case. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and 6 parameters, the description lacks detail on return format, pagination, or parameter interactions. It provides enough for basic usage but not complete context for a change-detection workflow without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 50% description coverage; the description adds no further explanation for parameters like page, limit, since, until, agency. The schema already has basic descriptions for some, but the description could have clarified usage (e.g., how agency slugs work) but does not. Value added beyond schema is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides a chronological feed of Federal Register documents and lists the specific types (RULE, PRORULE, NOTICE, PRESDOCU). It also notes the use case: compliance change-detection, which distinguishes it from other tools like 'gov.federal-register' (likely a general search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends use for compliance change-detection, indicating the context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, though the distinct purpose is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the dataset is annual, implying not real-time, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or other behavioral traits. The description does not go beyond the obvious data retrieval nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly restructured for better readability (e.g., listing fields and query methods in separate sentences).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists the fields returned but does not mention pagination (limit/offset) or error scenarios. With no output schema, more detail on the response structure would be beneficial. 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds value by explaining query patterns (by npi or lastName+state), which is not fully covered by the schema descriptions (which only describe npi and lastName individually). However, it does not cover limit and offset parameters. Given the schema description coverage is 40%, the description partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns Medicare utilization and payment data per provider, lists the data fields (beneficiary counts, charges, payments), and specifies query methods (by NPI or last name+state). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'health.open-payments' by noting the pairing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit query patterns: by NPI or lastName+state. It also mentions pairing with health.open-payments. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other health-related siblings (e.g., health.hospital-lookup, health.provider-profile), which are available in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions independent error reporting per section but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or data freshness. More transparency on behavior would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with 3 sentences, front-loading the main purpose without unnecessary details.
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?
No output schema provided. Description mentions data sources but does not specify the return structure or format of each section, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter description '10-digit National Provider Identifier.' The tool description reinforces the parameter's role but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool merges data from three distinct sources (NPPES, CMS Open Payments, CMS Medicare) for a given NPI, and specifies use cases like KYC and due diligence, distinguishing it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for provider background checks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the return format (compressed bytes in base64) and the exclusive-or constraint, but does not disclose rate limits, error handling, or side effects of lossy compression.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, no redundancy. It could be slightly improved with structure, but it efficiently conveys key information.
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?
Given 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return value details, parameter behaviors, or possible error states, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 17% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning only for url and imageBase64 (exactly one). It does not explain the effects of 'format', 'quality', 'lossy', or 'effort' parameters, which are left to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'compress' and the resource 'image', with two methods: fetch by URL or pass base64. It is specific and distinguishes from any sibling tools, as there is no other compress tool in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states 'Provide exactly one of url | imageBase64', giving a clear constraint. It does not mention alternatives, but the tool is single-purpose with no direct sibling, so the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions return fields including dead/deleted flags, but lacks disclosure of rate limits, authentication needs, or read-only nature. Moderate transparency given no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences deliver key information. No fluff. Could be slightly more structured but very concise and front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple feed tool with 2 params and no output schema, description covers what it returns and the feed types. Lacks pagination or ordering details but adequate for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 0%. Description mentions 'kind = top | new | ...' but does not map directly to parameter name or explain 'limit' parameter. Enum values are already in schema, so description adds minimal value beyond what schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it fetches Hacker News feed and lists the types of feeds (top, new, best, etc.) and what fields are returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like news.hn-item and news.search by focusing on feed retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage for fetching HN feeds but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like news.hn-item (single item) or news.search (search). No direct exclusions or scenario guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses backend (OpenStreetMap/Overpass API) and return fields but omits read-only hint, rate limits, or data freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: action, data source, return fields. No filler, information front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers basic purpose and output fields but lacks parameter details and behavioral context. Given no output schema and 5 parameters, leaves gaps for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'category' described). Description does not clarify lat/lon format, radius_m units, or limit usage beyond schema defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and resource 'points of interest near a coordinate', distinguishing it from siblings like 'airport.near' by specifying general POIs backed by OpenStreetMap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'geo.nearby' or 'airport.near'); usage is implied but not contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It lists return data but omits details like network dependence, potential errors, or authentication needs. Basic but adequate for a simple lookup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence plus bullet-like list of returned fields. No wasted words; front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists return fields but lacks input guidance. Adequate but not fully complete for an agent without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no description for the 'name' parameter, and the tool description does not clarify its format (e.g., exact package name, case sensitivity). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Look up a Python package on PyPI') and lists specific return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'registry.npm-lookup' which targets npm packages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; usage is implied by the resource name (PyPI vs. npm). Lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (NASA JPL CAD), output fields, and sorting behavior, but lacks information on authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no approaches are found. The transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, source, output fields, and sorting. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information: what it does, source, and return fields. It does not explain the limit parameter or potential error scenarios, but for a data retrieval tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide whether to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'date window' (dateMin, dateMax) and 'max distance' (distMaxAu) parameters. However, it does not mention the 'limit' parameter, nor does it clarify format or constraints beyond what the schema provides. The description adds partial but incomplete semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves near-Earth asteroid/comet close approaches within a date window and maximum distance, sourced from NASA JPL CAD. It lists the specific return fields (designation, date, distance in AU and lunar distances, relative velocity, magnitude) and notes sorting by nearest-first, making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like space.body or space.launches.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage based solely on the tool's name and description, without explicit context for when it is preferred over related space tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions quarterly frequency and federal agency use but omits details on rate limits, authentication, or specific response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, concise and well-structured, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (filtering, pagination) and lack of output schema, the description provides the purpose and comparison but does not explain output format or advanced usage, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (20%), with only the filter parameter having a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides official US Treasury exchange rates (quarterly) for federal agencies. It distinguishes itself from the sibling fx.rates by specifying the quarterly frequency and suggesting cross-validation with ECB daily rates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives guidance on when to use (for official Treasury rates) and references a sibling (fx.rates) for cross-validation, implying alternative use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data includes monthly and fiscal-year-to-date totals by classification, but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, pagination behavior, or required permissions. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core identity ('Monthly Treasury Statement (MTS) — Table 4') and efficiently lists the classifications. No extraneous words or redundancies.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 the data scope (receipt categories, time aggregation) but misses details on response structure, pagination, and parameter usage. It is somewhat complete for a data retrieval tool but leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the parameters (sort, fields, filter, pageSize, pageNumber). It only describes the content (receipt classifications) without linking to how parameters affect results. This leaves the agent without meaningful parameter guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving Monthly Treasury Statement Table 4 federal receipts by source. It lists the classification categories (individual income tax, corporate income tax, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like treasury.cash or treasury.debt that cover different financial data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for federal receipts data but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided, so the agent must infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and result, with no mention of error handling, authentication, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple decode, moderately acceptable but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without wasted words. Front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter decode tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it could mention potential response format or an example to improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with description '3-character WMI code.' The tool description adds 'first 3 chars of a VIN' which provides context but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Decode' and resource 'WMI' with specific meaning (first 3 chars of VIN) and outcome (to manufacturer). It distinguishes from siblings like vehicle.vin-decode (full VIN) and vehicle.manufacturers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use when you have a 3-character WMI code and want manufacturer, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like vehicle.vin-decode or vehicle.manufacturers. No when-not or exclusion criteria provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses returned data (listing + reputation stats) but omits pagination behavior (limit/offset) and read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with zero fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose and filtering options.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers basic purpose and result shape but lacks pagination details and sorting behavior, leaving gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (20%). Description adds meaning for q (free-text), capabilities (comma-separated, ALL must match), and network, but ignores limit and offset parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool discovers agents in the marketplace, with filtering options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent.marketplace.profile (single agent details) and agent.marketplace.register (registration).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for discovery via filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent.marketplace.profile for specific agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist; description only mentions normalization across states but omits behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or error handling. Lacks disclosure of any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences (40 words) front-load all key information: purpose, scope, search mode, and output fields. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lists return fields but does not specify search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, maximum results beyond schema limit), pagination, or empty result handling. Adequate for a simple tool but with gaps.
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?
While schema covers 40%, description clarifies that 'name' is partial match and 'entityId' is exact, and adds context about return fields and state coverage, enriching parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Describes a specific verb-resource combination ('business registry search') with scope ('NY, CO'), search methods ('by name or entityId'), and return fields. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like business.entity-screen.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for Secretary of State business searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor provides exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It notes the dataset (ClinicalTrials.gov) and coverage, but does not discuss rate limits, data freshness, pagination behavior, or result structure beyond what the schema implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It covers the core use case and filters but omits explanation of output format or pagination details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (13%), and the description adds value by grouping filters (recruitment status, sponsor, phase, country) and clarifying query modes (free-text or NCT ID). However, it does not describe pageSize or pageToken, which are important for pagination.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as searching ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical studies, specifying the scope (US and international, ~500k studies). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being domain-specific and mentions query methods and filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use (for clinical trials) and lists query methods and filters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that events are active/historical, include geo-located points and categories, but fails to mention rate limits, authentication, pagination behavior, or data update frequency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with core functionality. The first sentence lists event types which is helpful but slightly verbose. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides some output info (geo-located points, category) but omits details like bbox format, meaning of days-back, and any limitations or prerequisites. It is adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must add value. It lists filter options but does not explain the format for bbox, the meaning of days-back, or the exact semantics of each parameter. The enum values for status and category are self-explanatory, but other parameters lack context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides active and historical global natural events via NASA EONET v3, lists specific event types, and mentions geo-located observation points. It distinguishes from siblings like 'earth.now' or 'quakes.recent' which focus on different data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the available filters (status, days-back, category, bbox) and lists many event types not covered by sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or recommend alternatives, but the context makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description discloses read operation returning parsed data. Missing details on recency, rate limits, or data freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by enumerated fields. Efficient but slightly long due to field listing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers return fields well without output schema. Lacks sorting info and recency details, but adequate for a simple lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves recent SEC Form 4 insider transactions for a US public company by ticker, listing returned fields. Distinguishable from sibling tools like finance.sec-filings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for insider trades but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or comparison to other finance tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must define behavior. It correctly implies a read-only query but does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, authorization needs, or error conditions. Basic transparency is present 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a clear, front-loaded purpose and a succinct list of outputs. It is efficient and easy to parse, though slightly dense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description effectively lists all key return fields, covering origin/destination, times, delays, progress, and aircraft details. It addresses common use cases but omits error handling or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 33% with only 'ident' having a description. The description clarifies that 'ident' can be a designator or tail number, adding value. However, 'identType' enum values and 'limit' parameter are not explained, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool provides live flight status, lists specific output fields (origin/destination, times, delays, etc.), and directly answers common user questions. It clearly identifies the resource and action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description implies when to use (any flight status query), it does not mention alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling flight tools exist, so the lack of direct comparisons is acceptable, but still no guidance on when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states basic function without disclosing pagination, rate limits, permissions, or output format. Significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, no redundancy, directly conveys core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers dual mode (list/detail) and key filters, but lacks description of pagination parameters (limit/offset) and output structure. Adequate for a simple tool but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description explains congress, chamber, and systemCode (including example value), but omits limit and offset. Adds value for most parameters but not comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Describes tool as returning 'US Congressional committee list or single-committee detail', clearly distinguishing between list and detail modes, and specifies the data source (Congress.gov).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Filter list by congress + chamber' and 'Pass systemCode ... for single committee', implying appropriate use cases. Lacks mention of when not to use or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the large dataset size (>264M rows) but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or that the tool is read-only. Key behavioral aspects are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence defines the tool and scale, second enumerates capabilities. Information is front-loaded and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite covering main filters, the description omits pagination details (page, perPage) which are critical given the dataset size. No output schema exists, so description should provide more guidance on response contents. Overall adequate but incomplete for a param-heavy tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the main filter parameters (recipient, contributor fields, amounts, dates, cycle, isIndividual) and sort options. However, pagination parameters (page, perPage) are not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly identifies the tool as FEC Schedule A itemized contributions to federal political committees, with explicit filtering and sorting capabilities. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gov.fec-candidate or gov.fec-committee by focusing on contributions data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists filters and sort options, implying use for querying itemized contributions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gov.fec-totals, gov.fec-expenditures) or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions return fields (income/expenses, registrant+client, issues, document URL) but does not cover pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. The description is partially transparent but lacks completeness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the domain and purpose, then lists filters and returns. No extraneous words; every phrase serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a comprehensive overview of capabilities (filters, returns). However, it omits details like pagination behavior (page, pageSize) and error handling, which are relevant for an API tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 38%, with most parameters (lobbyist, year, period, page, pageSize) lacking descriptions. The description lists filterable fields but adds no additional meaning or examples for these undocumented parameters. It repeats the schema's partial descriptions without elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides US federal lobbying disclosures from the Senate LDA, specifying the key data points (who lobbies for whom, issues, amounts) and filter criteria. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., gov.bill-summaries, gov.congress-*) by focusing on lobbying filings, a unique domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for querying lobbying data through listed filters (registrant, client, year, etc.) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other government data tools. No when-not or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Mentions data source and filtering but does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior (though offset/limit parameters exist), or read-only nature. Lacks details on what happens with large result sets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every piece of information is relevant, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, 11 parameters including nested objects. Description covers main filtering capabilities but lacks details on return format, sorting, or how linking to inspections works. Adequate for a simple data query but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema parameter descriptions are generic ('OSHA violations') with 0% coverage. Description adds meaning to some parameters (e.g., 'standard (29 CFR section)', 'initial-penalty min/max', 'emphasis program code') but does not explain others like sort, fields, citationId, activityNr.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves OSHA citation/violation records from a specific data portal, mentions data size (~13.2M citations), and lists filtering options. Distinguishes from sibling tools like gov.osha-accidents and gov.osha-inspections by specifying the record type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use for filtering and linking to inspections, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., gov.osha-accidents, gov.osha-inspections). No guidance on prerequisites or when to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the data is read-only, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or update frequency. The description only states the data source and dataset contents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, each carrying essential information. No unnecessary words. It front-loads the source and then explains the two datasets.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low schema coverage (33%), the description should provide more context about output format, valid cause values, and time range per dataset. It covers basics but leaves gaps for effective tool usage.
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 description clearly explains the two dataset options and their data offerings (e.g., age-adjusted rate by state and top-10 cause for leading-causes), which adds meaning beyond the schema's enum. However, it does not describe limit, offset, or year behavior beyond schema. Schema coverage is 33%, and the description partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides US mortality statistics from CDC NCHS and details two datasets with specific content and time ranges, distinguishing it from sibling health tools that focus on hospitals, providers, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other mortality data tools or provide guidance on selecting between the two datasets beyond the implicit time range and granularity. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'fetch a specific item', omitting details like rate limits, error handling (e.g., ID not found), or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 8 words. It is efficient, no wasted words, and earns its place by clearly stating the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on what is returned (e.g., full item object) or error behavior. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It explains 'by numeric ID', clarifying that the parameter is an identifier. However, it does not specify any constraints (e.g., positive integer, range) or format, leaving the agent to infer. This provides marginal value beyond the schema type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'specific Hacker News item', and the method 'by numeric ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'news.hn-top' (top stories) and 'news.search' (general search) by specifying item retrieval by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a specific HN item ID is known. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide exclusions, but the context is clear enough that no alternative tools would be mistaken.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or any restrictions, only listing return fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action (Resolve a DOI) and lists key return fields efficiently. While somewhat lengthy, it uses minimal jargon and is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the returned metadata fields. It covers work type, title, container, authors, and more, providing adequate context for an AI agent.
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 description adds format acceptance details (bare DOI or full URL) beyond the input schema's description, which is helpful. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the added detail justifies a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool resolves a DOI to bibliographic metadata via Crossref, listing specific return fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'papers.search' by focusing on exact DOI resolution versus broader search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for DOI lookup but does not explicitly specify when to use versus alternatives (e.g., papers.search). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the data source and returned fields, but lacks details on rate limits, authorization, or error behavior. For a read-only search tool, this is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and output. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, data source, and returned fields. However, it omits pagination behavior (limit/offset) and any ordering or status codes, which would be helpful for a search tool. Still largely complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (3 of 6 params have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning for parameters like 'applicationType', 'limit', or 'offset', beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain how to use them effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches US patent applications and grants from the USPTO Open Data Portal, specifying the types of results returned (titles, inventors, status, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like patents.detail and patents.documents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for general patent search, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. No guidance on usage context or when not to use is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the tool searches and filters; it does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the source and resources, then lists filters concisely. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose and basic filters, but lacks details on output format, pagination (offset, limit) behavior, error handling, or expected response structure. For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (10%). The description adds value by summarizing filters (query, state, activity ID, lat/lon + radius) and listing resources, but does not explain each parameter's format or behavior (e.g., what 'state' expects, how latitude/longitude are used). It partially compensates but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly identifies the tool as searching the Recreation Information Database (RIDB) for federal recreation data. It lists specific resource types (recareas, facilities, etc.) and mentions available filters. This is specific and distinctive, especially given that sibling tools are unrelated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly states when to use: for federal recreation information across multiple agencies. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the sibling list shows no competing recreation tools, so usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions fetching time series and optional year parameters but fails to disclose pagination behavior (page/limit parameters exist in schema but are absent from description), rate limits, or error handling. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences that front-load the core action and provide context. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key inputs (country, indicator, year range) and scale but omits pagination details and response format. It is adequate for basic use but could be more complete given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (country and indicator have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining yearFrom/yearTo as optional brackets and providing an indicator example, but it does not cover page or limit parameters. This partially compensates for the schema gaps but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches a time series of a specific World Bank indicator for a country, with an example indicator code and country format. It distinguishes itself from sibling data tools by explicitly naming the data source (World Bank Open Data) and specifying the scale (1000+ indicators, 200+ countries).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for World Bank data but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, though the context of sibling tools makes the purpose reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the output includes listing, stats, and reviews but does not mention error handling, permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the agent profile does not exist. The description is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that clearly communicates the core functionality and return components. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the scope and return format. It could mention potential limitations (e.g., only 25 reviews) but overall is complete for a simple fetch tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes 'namespace' as 'Target agent pubkey.' with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Fetch', the resource 'one agent's full marketplace profile', and the components 'listing + stats + up to 25 recent reviews'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'agent.marketplace.discover' (which presumably lists multiple) and 'agent.marketplace.review'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching a specific agent's profile but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like 'agent.marketplace.discover' or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description adds useful context about data source (OurAirports, CC0 and scale (~85k airports) but does not mention error handling or behavior on invalid codes, which is acceptable for a simple lookup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the key action and resource. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no output schema; the description covers purpose, input format, and data source. Minor omission of error handling or return format doesn't significantly hinder completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter well. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the data source and code length hints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'look up' and resource 'airport by IATA or ICAO code', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'airport.near' that handle geographical queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for code-based lookup but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like 'airport.near' for location-based searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It notes that bioguide IDs are stable across history, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, error handling, or permissions, leaving gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the essential purpose and query options. There is no fluff; every word adds value.
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?
Despite 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain pagination (limit/offset defaults), result format, or what to expect when no parameters are provided. This is inadequate for a tool with such a rich schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions key parameters (bioguideId, state, district, congress, currentMember) but not limit/offset. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond naming, especially given 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a US Congress member lookup by bioguide ID or filtered list, specifying the filterable fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `gov.congress-bill` and `gov.congress-committee`, which focus on other congressional entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description outlines two primary use cases: lookup by bioguide ID or filtered list with state, district, congress, and currentMember. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to other tools, but the context of sibling tool names makes the scope clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It outlines return fields but does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, error handling, or idempotency. The description implies read-only behavior but without explicit confirmation. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single well-structured sentence after the tool name and source. It front-loads key information (FINRA BrokerCheck) and efficiently lists search methods and return fields. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of search capabilities and return fields. It lacks details on pagination (limit/offset behavior) and error cases, but is sufficient for a straightforward lookup tool. Completeness is strong but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%; only crd and query have descriptions. The description reinforces that query is for free-text (name+firm) and crd is for direct number, adding context beyond schema. However, limit and offset lack description both in schema and description, so no added value for those parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool is for FINRA BrokerCheck, searching registered US brokers/investment advisors by free-text query or CRD number. It specifies the return fields (CRD, name, aliases, scopes, disclosure flag, industry-start date, employments), distinguishing it from sibling tools like license.medical or business.entity-screen.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description explains search methods (free-text query including name+firm, or CRD number) but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like person.cross-registry or other license tools. No explicit when/when-not context or prerequisites provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that computation is local ('no upstream'), which is a behavioral trait. Mentions output details (rise/set, alt/az, phase) but could add more on accuracy or limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (single long sentence with list and keywords), but slightly dense. No front-loading issue; each part adds value. Could be more structured for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description must cover return values. It lists key outputs (sun/moon, planets) with some fields (alt/az, magnitude). Lacks detail on optional params and default behavior, but generally complete for intended use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 4 parameters (lat, lon, altitudeM, at) with 0% description coverage. Description only hints at lat/lon and time, missing altitudeM and 'at' format details. Does not adequately explain parameter meaning or units.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it computes observer-local sky almanac for given lat/lon and time, listing specific outputs (sun/moon, planets) and use cases (stargazing, astrophotography). Distinguishes from sibling space tools by specifying 'computed, no upstream' and focusing on local almanac.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes what it does and when to use (general sky almanac), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. Agent can infer, but lack of exclusion guidance lowers score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 fails to disclose behavioral traits such as error handling for invalid VINs, rate limits, latency, or whether the operation is read-only. The description only states what the tool does without additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by context and use cases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (decoding VIN + fetching safety data) and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks error handling details but adequately covers the tool's functionality and typical use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds use-case context but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (decodes, returns), the resource (VIN), and the output (safety recalls and owner complaints). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vehicle.recalls, vehicle.complaints, and vehicle.vin-decode by combining decoding with safety data retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear use cases ('Used-car due diligence, fleet safety, insurance'), implying when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or comparisons with alternatives like vehicle.recalls or vehicle.vin-decode.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes return fields but does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or auth requirements. For a lookup tool, the description is honest but could be more transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('NHTSA vehicle recall lookup') and efficiently conveys search options and return fields with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a lookup tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers search options and return fields. It lacks mention of pagination, multiple results, or error handling, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds grouping and emphasis on VIN precision but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is an NHTSA vehicle recall lookup, specifying search options (VIN, make/model/year, NHTSA campaign ID) and return fields. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vehicle.complaints, the name and focus on recalls make the purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit search methods (VIN, make/model/year, campaign ID) and notes that VIN is the most precise. However, it does not advise when to use alternatives like vehicle.complaints or vehicle.investigations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully describes the output structure: IPA transcriptions, audio URLs, meanings grouped by part of speech with definitions, examples, synonyms, antonyms. It also notes the data source and license, providing good transparency for a simple lookup tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose, source, and output structure efficiently with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the return elements, data source, and license. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or rate limits, but acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description ('1-50 English alphabetic characters'). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming it's an English dictionary entry. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns an English dictionary entry, specifying the source (dictionaryapi.dev with Wiktionary data) and the type of data returned (IPA, audio, meanings, etc.). It distinguishes from the sibling 'word.related' which handles related words.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'word.related'. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention usage context or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context by stating 'insert-only' and listing the outcome values and optional fields, though it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that includes the core action, constraints, and parameter summary with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers the basic purpose and required parameters, it omits details on the response format and the exact meaning of optional fields like txHash and network, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is low (17%), but the description mentions rating range and lists optional fields. However, it does not explain txHash or network semantics fully, so only partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Post' and resource 'review of another agent' with the constraint 'insert-only', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like agent.marketplace.profile or agent.marketplace.register.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (for posting reviews) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other review actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses idempotency and the specific return value for non-existent keys. This gives the agent clear knowledge of safety and outcome beyond the annotation-free context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers essential behavior (idempotency, return shape) for a simple delete operation. Could potentially mention persistence guarantees, but adequate given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what the 'key' parameter represents or any constraints on its format. The parameter is left ambiguous, relying solely on the name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a memory entry' with a clear verb and resource. The idempotent behavior further clarifies the action. Although it doesn't contrast with siblings like 'put', the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory.put' or 'memory.get'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context-specific usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses return values (value, etag, sizeBytes, timestamps) and error conditions (404 if missing/expired). With no annotations provided, this adds valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and covers key details without extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the action, return fields, and an important error condition (404). No further context is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by key,' indicating the role of the key parameter. However, it does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format, length, or constraints). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is adequate but not richer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read a memory entry by key,' specifying the resource (memory entry) and action (read). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like put, delete, and list, which have different purposes.
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?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., agent.memory.list, agent.memory.put). There is no mention of when not to use it or specific prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it returns matched entities with sanctions screen (confidence + flagged) and mentions probabilistic name match, but does not cover rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers the main purpose and return structure (entities with sanctions results), but lacks details on parameter interactions and error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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. However, it does not explain individual parameters like 'name', 'entityId', 'threshold', 'limit', or their usage. Only 'state' is implied from the context of US state registries.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('look up' and 'screen'), the resource (business in US state registry plus OFAC sanctions screening), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like law.sanctions-check or business.sos-search by combining both actions in one call.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Counterparty due-diligence, AML' which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states it returns structural identifiers and physical properties, but does not detail which ones or mention any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. This is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences pack all key information—action, identifiers, output summary, source. No redundancy or unnecessary details. Excellent front-loading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a simple lookup tool but lacks clarification that at least one identifier is required (though implied), what happens if multiple are provided, and a more specific list of returned properties. Without output schema, more detail would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description adds the context of NIH PubChem and the purpose, but does not significantly enhance beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action ('Look up a chemical compound'), the resources (cid, name, smiles, inchikey), and the result (canonical structural identifiers + physical properties from NIH PubChem). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings which deal with different domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly states when to use (when you need compound info from PubChem) and how to search (by four identifier types). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tools, but the context is sufficient given the sibling list includes many non-chemistry tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 implies a read-only operation (locator) and details EV return fields, but does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. The description 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: first introduces the tool and lists filters, second specifies EV return fields. Both sentences are information-dense and front-loaded, with no redundant words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the purpose and filters well, and details return values for EV stations, but does not specify return values for other fuel types. With no output schema, this is a gap. Parameter count is 10, and while many filters are mentioned, some (like limit) are not explained. The description is adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 10% (one parameter has a description). The tool's description compensates by listing most filter options and fuel type codes in a narrative form, but it does not describe each parameter individually (e.g., limit, network, accessCode). This adds value over the schema but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is an 'NREL alternative-fuel station locator' with specific filters (lat/lon, radius, state, zip, fuelType with codes, status, access, EV network). It has a unique purpose among sibling tools, which do not include station locators, achieving high differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (to find alternative-fuel stations with various filters) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. Given no obvious sibling overlap, the lack of exclusions is not a major gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the backend API (SEC EDGAR) and return structure, but does not discuss rate limits, data freshness, or idempotency. For a read-only data tool, this is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and return value. No redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately describes what is returned (company info and filing list with accession numbers, forms, dates, URLs). It also names the data source. For a simple retrieval tool, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions exist for ticker and formType (67% coverage). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameters; it restates the ticker purpose. The limit parameter lacks description in schema and tool description, relying on constraints only.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves recent SEC filings for a US public company by ticker, lists specific forms (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K), and describes the return content (company info and filing details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like finance.company-facts or finance.insider-trades.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for SEC filings but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or limitations. No mention of when not to use or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. It only states 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the two main use cases but does not explain the return structure (e.g., is it a list or single object?). Given no output schema, more detail on results would improve completeness. Sibling tools provide context but the description could be more self-contained.
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?
Input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'congress' and 'number' identify a single nomination and that date range filters can be applied. It does not cover 'limit' and 'offset', but they are standard pagination.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool handles US presidential nominations sent to the Senate, which is distinct from sibling tools dealing with amendments, bills, committees, etc. It specifies the resource and verb (retrieve nominations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description outlines two usage patterns: 'Pass congress+number for single nomination' and 'filter by congress + date range'. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the sibling tools cover different congressional entities, making it clear when to use this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions return fields but does not describe pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, inputs, and outputs. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no redundant or extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of return fields but lacks detailed structure or examples. It is minimally adequate but could be more comprehensive for a tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (drug and reaction). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for these. The 'limit' parameter lacks any description in both schema and description, so the overall contribution is minimal, consistent with the baseline for high coverage but missing coverage for one parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching FDA adverse drug event reports (FAERS) by drug name. It includes key details like optional filtering by MedDRA reaction term and specifies return fields (seriousness flags, patient demographics, reactions, drugs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gov.fda-animalvet-events and gov.fda-device-events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear context for usage: searching human drug adverse events. It implicitly differentiates from siblings, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. The guidance is sufficient but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses ordering ('newest first') and aggregation frequency ('daily'), but does not mention destructive mutations, rate limits, required permissions, or response structure. This is adequate but incomplete for a read-like tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and filtering options. Every word serves a purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate parameter count (8) and lack of output schema, the description provides key behavioral context (ordering, aggregation, filters) but omits the return format and pagination details. Completeness is moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (25%), but the description adds meaning for most parameters (year, congress, result, bill, date range via since/until). However, it does not explain 'limit' or 'offset'. This adds value beyond the schema but still leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource ('US House of Representatives roll-call votes') and the action (list, with filtering). It distinguishes from the sibling 'gov.senate-votes' by specifying 'House', and mentions ordering ('newest first').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists available filters (year, congress, result, bill substring, date range) and notes the data source ('Locally aggregated daily from clerk.house.gov'). It implies when to use (House votes) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives beyond the sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context (source, dataset size, coverage since 2000) but omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, return format, or whether filters are required. It does not disclose potential side effects (likely none) or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with key info (source, size, coverage). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks details on return structure, default behavior when no filters are applied, and pagination. It covers the main use case but leaves gaps for complex queries.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for most filtering parameters (mineId, contractorId, state, subunit, date range, classification) beyond the schema, but fails to mention sort, limit, fields, and offset. Schema description coverage is low (9%), so the description partially compensates but is not exhaustive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves MSHA mine safety accident records from the DOL Open Data Portal, covering all US mine accidents since 2000, and lists filter parameters. It distinguishes itself from similar tools (e.g., gov.osha-accidents) by explicitly specifying 'MSHA' and 'mine safety'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists specific filter criteria (mine id, contractor id, state, subunit, date range, classification), guiding when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for other accident types (e.g., OSHA).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavior. 'Compute' implies a stateless, read-only operation, and hashing is inherently non-destructive. This is sufficient for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No extraneous information, perfectly sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description could describe what the tool returns (likely a hash map) and clarify parameter relationships. It covers the basics but lacks depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds algorithm examples but does not explain the interplay between 'algorithm' and 'algorithms' parameters or the meaning of input/output encodings. Schema coverage is 40%, so the description should compensate more.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Compute' and identifies the resource as 'cryptographic hashes', listing common algorithms. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, none of which perform hashing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. However, the tool's purpose is straightforward and no sibling tool conflicts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly states the core behavior (verifying citations against a real corpus) but fails to disclose limitations such as handling of invalid citations, rate limits, or potential latency. It adds useful context like 'anti-hallucination' but lacks completeness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input and purpose adequately but omits any indication of the output format or behavior (e.g., what happens when citations are valid or invalid). This leaves the agent guessing about the return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'text' with a detailed description. The tool description reinforces the purpose but does not add new information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool verifies US legal citations against the CourtListener corpus, specifying the verb 'verify' and the resource 'US legal citations.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like law.case-search by focusing on verification rather than search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by framing it as an 'anti-hallucination check before quoting case law,' implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, leaving room for improvement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation by stating 'Returns parsed judge records'. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a simple lookup this is adequate. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, each serving a purpose: the first defines the action and output, the second lists use cases. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple lookup with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, input, and output. It could mention how to handle multiple results or pagination, but the limit parameter hints at this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only 'name' has a description). The description does not add any additional meaning for 'name' beyond what the schema provides, and it entirely fails to describe the 'limit' parameter, leaving a gap for the agent. The description should have explained the limit parameter's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a federal judge lookup by name, specifies the source (CourtListener), and lists the types of data returned (DOB, DOD, FJC ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like law.case-search or law.attorney-lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists use cases (venue research, judicial profile lookup, bio enrichment) which indicates when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools for similar purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Declares 'read API' but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, pagination, or read-only guarantee. No annotations to clarify.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filters. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main purpose and filters, but missing details on start parameter, combination rules, output format, authentication. No output schema.
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?
Adds meaning beyond schema: explains resource enum values, parkCode as CSV, state, q as free-text. Schema has 0% coverage, so description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it's a unified read API for NPS with specific resources (parks, alerts, etc.) and filters. Distinguishes from siblings by being NPS-specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not. Mentions it's a read API but no alternatives among siblings provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It lists return fields but does not disclose rate limits, pagination details, or whether results are live. Adequate for basic understanding but missing some behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that front-load purpose and efficiently cover key usage and return data. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and basic parameters but omits pagination (limit/offset). Could be more complete for effective use without additional discovery.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description explains when (values) and search (fields), but does not mention limit or offset. Adds meaning for half the parameters but incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states 'orbital rocket launches' from 'Launch Library 2', with clear differentiation between upcoming and previous launches. The verb is implied (list/get) and the resource is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context on when to use upcoming vs previous via the 'when' parameter, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool compared to sibling space tools like space.satellite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It includes 'Deterministic' which hints at no side effects, but fails to disclose return behavior on valid vs invalid input or any error conditions. The tool is likely safe but lacks full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loads the key action (validate), and includes essential detail without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context about the input and purpose. However, it lacks information about the return format (e.g., boolean, error messages) which would complete the picture for an agent.
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 schema describes the parameter as '18-digit SSCC.' The description adds extra context: the GS1 mod-10 check digit, the full name, and the purpose in logistics. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates an SSCC, explains the acronym, specifies 18 digits with GS1 mod-10 check digit, and gives the use case (logistic units in shipping). This distinguishes it from sibling validators that handle different code types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for SSCC validation but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to other validation siblings like validate.gtin or validate.gln. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It discloses the ≤64 KiB value limit and optional TTL, but does not cover write semantics (e.g., atomicity, error conditions) or authentication details beyond the namespace.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences with front-loaded main action. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, key format, value size, TTL, but does not mention return value or error handling. For a write operation with no output schema, this is acceptable but could be more complete.
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 description adds the ≤64 KiB constraint for the value parameter and clarifies 'Optional TTL' for ttlSeconds, which supplements the schema. For key and value, schema already provides descriptions, so marginal addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Write/replace a memory entry in the calling agent's private KV store,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like agent.memory.get, delete, and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the namespace but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage through contrast with sibling names but lacks direct alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description bears full burden. Discloses return format (base64) and default format. Lacks details on potential side effects, error handling, or size limits, but generation is inherently non-destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with primary action, no redundancy. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all parameters, output format, and default behavior. No output schema needed. Complete for a simple generation tool; minor improvement would be mentioning typical use cases.
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?
Adds meaning beyond schema: explains data payload structure with examples, notes format defaults and supported types. Schema coverage is ~50%, but description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'generate', resource 'barcode or QR code', and output 'image bytes'. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying supported formats (qr, code128, ean13).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. However, the tool is self-contained; no sibling tools overlap directly, so implied usage is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively communicates the tool's read-only nature via 'lookup' and details the returned fields (gene identity and protein attributes). It does not contradict any annotations (none provided) and adds value by describing the join operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and defaults, followed by a clear summary of the output. Every part adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately specifies the returned data fields from both NCBI and UniProt. It lacks information on error handling or pagination, but for a straightforward lookup tool, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (symbol described). The description clarifies that taxid defaults to 9606 (human) and represents the organism, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare integer definition. However, it does not elaborate further on parameter constraints or formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs a gene lookup by symbol and organism (taxid), and specifies the data sources (NCBI Gene and UniProt). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bio.protein and bio.species by indicating it returns joined gene and protein data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for combined gene and protein lookups, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools such as bio.protein for protein-only queries or bio.species for species information. No usage exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source, date range limit, that records go back to the 1800s, and that it returns measured values. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, or data completeness. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, with the first sentence providing the core functionality and the second adding context and a prerequisite. It is efficient and front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema, the description fairly well explains the type of data returned (temperature, precipitation, snow, wind) and the date range constraint. It could be improved by clarifying the output structure or how to handle cases like missing data, but it covers the main elements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds value by explaining the overall data returned and giving an example station ID format and the default dataTypes, but it does not deepen understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves historical daily weather observations from NOAA GHCN-Daily for one station and a date range, listing specific data fields and units. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool climate.station-near by instructing to find a station ID with that tool first.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly guides the user to first find a station ID using climate.station-near and specifies the date range limit of ≤366 days. While it does not mention when not to use, the purpose is well-scoped and the prerequisite is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return fields but does not specify details like case sensitivity, exact matching for state/city/zip, pagination behavior, or rate limits. For a read-only lookup, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates scope, search methods, and return fields. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description lists returned fields. It covers all searchable parameters but omits details like exact formats for state/city/zip and pagination info. For a simple lookup tool, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 38% schema description coverage (3 of 8 parameters documented), the description adds context by stating searchable fields and partial matching. However, it lacks format details for state, city, and zip, and does not explain limit/offset parameters beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching US public K-12 schools by various criteria. It specifies the data source (NCES Common Core of Data) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like edu.college-scorecard, which targets colleges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists multiple search fields (name, district, state, city, zip, ncessch) and notes partial matching for name and district. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, the context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the electionFull behavior and scope, but omits details on pagination, data freshness, authentication, and return structure. For a tool with 11 parameters, more behavioral context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences cover purpose, examples, filters, and special behavior. No fluff, efficient for the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and many parameters, the description provides core functionality and important special cases (electionFull). It could be improved by noting pagination defaults and expected fields in the response, but is largely complete for a data retrieval tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well. It mentions most parameters (scope, IDs, cycle, office, party, state, district, electionFull) and explains how they work. Missing only page and perPage, which are common pagination defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides FEC aggregate financial totals for candidates or committees, with specific examples like receipts and disbursements. It distinguishes itself from sibling FEC tools (e.g., contributions, expenditures) by focusing on totals rather than individual transactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the tool is for aggregated totals, but lacks direct guidance like 'use for summary data, not detailed transactions.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It lists return fields but omits potential behavioral aspects like pagination (limit/offset), rate limits, or data freshness. It does not contradict any annotations since none are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two front-loaded sentences. The first covers purpose and usage, the second lists outputs, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is fairly complete, covering purpose, usage, and return fields. It lacks details on pagination and error handling but is adequate for a lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (25%), and the description adds meaning by explaining search modes (facilityId for exact, name/city/state/hospitalType/minRating for fuzzy). However, it does not elaborate on each parameter's format or constraints, leaving some gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool does a CMS Care Compare hospital lookup, with specific lookup methods (by facility ID or fuzzy search) and explicit return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like health.hospital-quality by focusing on general hospital information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use exact facility ID lookup versus fuzzy search with optional filters, providing implicit usage guidance. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the guidance is clear enough for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns quality ratings and measure summaries, which is the core behavior. However, it omits details like data freshness, rate limits, or response structure, leaving some transparency gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, data scope, and search methods. Every part adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the output includes overall star rating and measure summaries, which is helpful given no output schema. It also sets context with the number of hospitals. However, it does not address pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 33% (only facilityId and name have descriptions). The description adds meaning for facilityId (CMS certification number) and name (partial match), but does not elaborate on state, city, limit, or offset beyond their names. It partially compensates for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides CMS Care Compare hospital quality ratings including overall star rating and measure summaries. It specifies the data scope (~5,300 hospitals) and search methods (by facilityId or filters). This distinguishes it from siblings like health.hospital-lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use facilityId versus state/city/name filters, providing clear usage context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives but adequately covers primary use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: fuzzy matching, ranked results with similarity scores, sanctions program metadata, and daily list refresh. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist) and adds value beyond the schema by explaining the output nature and data freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: first states action and target, second describes output, third notes data freshness. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (ranked matches with scores and metadata). Parameter details are sufficient from schema. Could mention result limits or pagination, but current completeness is appropriate for a screening tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the purpose. Baseline score of 3 applies as schema covers most parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool performs fuzzy matching of names against the OFAC SDN list, with specific entity types (person, company, vessel, aircraft). The verb 'Fuzzy-match' and resource 'US Treasury OFAC SDN list' are explicit, and the tool is well-distinguished from sibling law tools like trademark or case search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for sanctions screening but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as other law tools or business entity screening tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the combined functionality and output structure, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. It does not contradict annotations as there are none.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with function and output details, then use cases. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains return values (registry record fields and sanctions block). It covers use cases and parameter effects (limit). Could mention error handling or pagination, but overall complete for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 67% coverage with descriptions for q and ein (XOR constraint). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema. The limit parameter has no description in schema or description, but its constraints are clear from schema (min, max, default).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool looks up US 501(c) nonprofits and screens against the OFAC sanctions list in one call. It specifies outputs (registry record + sanctions block) and differentiates from similar tools like nonprofit.search (no sanctions) and law.sanctions-check (general sanctions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear use cases: 'Grant-making due diligence and donation compliance.' It implies when to use the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention direct alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (IRS Form 990 + BMF) and return fields (EIN, name, location, etc.) but omits details like pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling. Adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose and data source, second lists search fields and return data. Front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose, searchable fields, and return fields. Missing details on pagination and multiple filter combination, but sufficient for basic use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 83%, with most parameters documented. The description adds value by listing searchable fields in prose and explaining the subsection code (3 = 501(c)(3)). It provides context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a search tool for US 501(c) nonprofit organizations via ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, with specific search fields (name, EIN, state, NTEE code, subsection code). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'nonprofit.screen' by focusing on search rather than screening.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for searching nonprofits but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'nonprofit.screen'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool returns detailed file-wrapper content with specific categories, implying read-only behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly mention safety traits like idempotency or auth needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with colon-separated list. Front-loaded with primary purpose, then detailed enumeration. Every word contributes value; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given only one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete, listing all major data categories returned. However, it omits error conditions or how to obtain the application number. Still adequate for a detail retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'applicationNumber' with description '6-10 digit USPTO application number.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Full file-wrapper detail for a US patent application' and enumerates specific data categories (bibliography, event timeline, continuity chain, assignments, foreign priority), distinguishing it from sibling tools like patents.search and patents.documents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use for comprehensive detail retrieval on a single application, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like patents.search or patents.documents. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description describes the return fields and example document types, but does not disclose if the list is paginated, if it's read-only, or any side effects. More detail on behavior would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states purpose with examples, second lists return fields. No filler, front-loaded, efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description mentions return fields but omits pagination, ordering, or error conditions. Still reasonably complete for a simple list tool with one parameter.
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 schema covers 100% but the description adds valuable context: '6-10 digit USPTO application number.' This format and provenance info goes beyond the schema's 'string' type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'every document in a US patent application file wrapper', with concrete examples (Office Actions, IDS, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like patents.search and patents.detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does and implicitly requires an application number, but does not explicitly guide when to use this vs. alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It lists return data but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or auth requirements. The '50 most recent versions' detail adds some transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, input format, and output details. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup without annotations or output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return fields. It lacks error handling and performance context, but is largely adequate for correct invocation.
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 single parameter 'name' lacks schema description, but the description explains it supports scoped packages (@scope/name), adding meaningful context beyond the bare type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'look up an npm package by name', specifying the resource (npm packages) and supporting scoped packages. It lists the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling registry tools like registry.pypi-lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for npm packages, but does not explicitly guide when to use or avoid it, nor mention alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses per-section found/error behavior and mentions three sources, but lacks details on safety, rate limits, or authentication. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise three-sentence description, front-loaded with 'Synthesis', no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity and no output schema, description lists three sources and mentions per-section found/error, providing sufficient context for a synthesis tool. Lacks return format details but acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains lat/lon for location but omits altitude. Adds some value over schema but incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool synthesizes multiple sky data sources (almanac, asteroid approaches, ISS position) for a given location, distinguishing it from specialized sibling tools like space.close-approaches or space.sky-tonight.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a combined sky overview is needed, contrasting with individual tools. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only 'snapshot' with no side effects, but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or auth requirements. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context beyond the data fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element (NOAA, snapshot, specific indices) adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the returned data. However, mentioning that it requires no input is implicit, and a note on output format would slightly improve completeness.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema does the heavy lifting (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter info, but baseline is 4 per rules for 0 params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides a current NOAA space-weather snapshot with specific data points (planetary Kp index, solar flux, geomagnetic storm scale, aurora viewing forecast), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like space.body or weather.alerts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for current space-weather conditions but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. While the context makes it fairly clear, direct comparison to similar tools (e.g., space.observe for aurora forecasts) is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses data sources (CC0 boundary index + tzdata) and output fields, but could clarify behavior of the 'at' parameter (e.g., historical vs current). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it is mostly adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main function, and adds technical detail without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the main functionality and return fields. Missing details like exact output structure or error cases are acceptable given the straightforward nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (33%), and the description does not explicitly elaborate on lat/lon parameters, though their usage is implied by the tool purpose. The 'at' parameter description in schema is sufficient. Overall, the description adds little beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool resolves a coordinate to IANA timezone and related data, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like geocode.reverse by focusing on timezone rather than address.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for timezone lookup from coordinates but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or prerequisites. Sibling tools like geo.nearby or geocode.reverse are not addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors (strips clutter, returns bytes for html/pdf) but lacks info on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key action and supported by format details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description adequately covers return formats and the fact that html/pdf return raw bytes. Could mention that markdown/text return strings, but overall sufficient for invocation.
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?
Description adds significant meaning beyond the minimal schema: it explains format enum values and their return types (including raw bytes for html/pdf). Schema coverage is 0% but description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it fetches a page, strips clutter, and returns article content. Distinguishes from sibling tools like url.unfurl and url.render by focusing on clean content extraction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., url.unfurl, url.render). The description implies usage for article extraction but does not provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the source (NHTSA vPIC) and return fields, but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate for a read-like decode operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence that front-loads the action and result. Every word adds value; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description lists typical return fields. For a simple decode tool, this is mostly complete. Could mention validation or error messages but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description only reiterates the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., '17-character VIN', 'Optional model-year hint (1981+)'). No additional meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Decode a 17-character VIN via NHTSA vPIC' and lists specific return fields (make, model, model year, etc.), clearly identifying the tool's purpose and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vehicle.complaints or vehicle.recalls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates when to use (to decode a VIN) and lists the data returned, making it obvious. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, the sibling tools are distinct enough that this is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool aggregates from multiple sources, deduplicates, and ranks results. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no results are found, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the typical usage pattern, and every sentence provides essential information. It is concise with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but the description covers inputs, purpose, sources, deduplication, ranking, and the intended use case (catching up from training cutoff). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and when to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds context by mapping 'topic' and 'since' to the natural language example. However, it does not elaborate on 'until' or 'maxEvents' beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions are adequate, so the description adds marginal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: listing what's happened in a topic since a date, aggregating multiple sources (regulations, court opinions, papers, House+Senate votes), deduplicating and ranking results. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single sources (e.g., gov.house-votes, law.opinion).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the tool is designed for an agent to 'catch up since its LLM training cutoff' in one call, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use case is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions the 10-year limit but does not discuss error handling, rate limits, or data frequency (e.g., monthly vs. annual). The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (two sentences) and well-structured: it states the purpose, gives parameter usage, and provides common examples. Every sentence adds value with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (3 params, no output schema), the description covers input constraints well but does not describe the output format (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves the agent somewhat uncertain about what the response will look like.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining seriesIds as comma-separated (1-10), and startYear/endYear as optional with a 10-year max. It adds meaning beyond the schema's type/range constraints, providing usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves US Bureau of Labor Statistics time-series data, specifies that seriesIds are comma-separated BLS IDs (1-10 per call), and provides examples like LNS14000000. It distinguishes itself from any sibling tools by focusing on a specific data source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit constraints: up to 10 series IDs, optional startYear and endYear with a maximum 10-year range. While it does not compare to alternative tools, there are no similar BLS tools, so this guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool normalizes and classifies phone numbers, listing output types. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid numbers, error handling, or whether it is read-only (though safe to assume). 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key outputs. Every element serves a purpose, with no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It lists format variants and type categories, providing sufficient context for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not repeat parameter details. However, it adds value by explaining the classification (mobile, fixed_line, etc.) and the use of libphonenumber, which enriches understanding beyond the schema's simple parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool normalizes phone numbers to E.164 and classifies them using libphonenumber. It specifies return values (format variants, type, region), distinguishing it from any sibling tools, none of which handle phone normalization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for normalizing and classifying phone numbers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no sibling tools with similar functionality, so the lack of exclusions is acceptable but not ideal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses the tool is a read-only lookup returning specific fields and data source (PLUTO). However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on no match/multiple matches, leaving some ambiguity about the result structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states purpose and output, the second explains parameters and join key. Every word adds value, no redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the two lookup modes and key fields, but lacks details on return format (single object vs array), error handling, or behavior for ambiguous address matches. It is adequate but leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.
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?
Schema description coverage is 67%, but the tool description adds meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies the bbl format (10-digit Borough-Block-Lot), that address is partial and can be constrained by borough (listing codes), and that the BBL is a join key. The address parameter, lacking schema description, is well explained here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a NYC tax-lot lookup via PLUTO, listing specific data fields returned (owner, zoning, area, etc.) and two lookup methods (bbl exact or address+borough). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting the BBL as a universal join key for property.nyc-deed-history, nyc-permits, and nyc-violations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use bbl vs address+borough for lookup, and implicitly suggests using this tool first to obtain the BBL for subsequent queries to sibling property tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. While the tool is likely a simple query, the description could have added safety or constraint information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence front-loaded with the key action and data source, followed by a parenthetical list of examples and returned fields. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the key returned fields (NEO/PHA flags, diameter, albedo, orbit class, etc.), giving an agent sufficient expectation of the response. For a one-parameter tool, this is complete.
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 already describes the single parameter 'q' as 'Asteroid/comet designation, number, or name.' The tool description reinforces this with authoritative examples, adding value beyond the schema's bare description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves physical and orbital parameters of asteroids/comets from NASA JPL Small-Body Database. Specific examples (e.g., '433 Eros') and the list of returned fields further clarify the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling space tools like space.exoplanet or space.close-approaches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies input by designation, number, or name with examples, guiding when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, which is acceptable given the tool's simple query nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses source (fresh Celestrak elements + SGP4) and return values (sub-point, speed, optional look angles). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Adequate but could mention data latency or limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy, essential information front-loaded. Every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Captures core functionality and optional parameters, but omits explanation of altKm and at, and no return type structure. Given no output schema or annotations, more detail would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Explains noradId with example and lat/lon for observer position. But altKm and at (date-time) are not explained in description, and schema has no descriptions. Leaves ambiguity about optional parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'current position', specific resource 'any cataloged satellite by NORAD number', and distinguishes from siblings like space.body by focusing on satellites and providing an example (25544=ISS).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: use for current satellite position with optional observer location for look angles. Includes an example NORAD ID. Does not explicitly exclude sibling tools, but usage is well implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It notes 'Active probe' implying network impact, and 'SSRF-guarded' suggesting safety, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or potential destruction. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with primary action, followed by a comprehensive list of output fields. No superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description enumerates all relevant certificate details (protocol, cipher, chain, expiry, etc.), fully informing the agent of returned data. Context for usage is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers host with description 'Hostname or IP.' and port with constraints but no description. Description adds no parameter-specific details beyond schema. Schema coverage is partial (port description missing), but description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Open a live TLS connection' and resource 'host certificate', listing numerous output fields. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like dns.lookup or domain.whois by focusing on live TLS probing and certificate details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description states use cases 'Cert-expiry monitoring, TLS audits' and notes 'Active probe; SSRF-guarded'. It implies when to use but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the deterministic nature, the use of a weighted check digit, and that it returns validity and check digit. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or whether it involves external lookup (e.g., security-master implies a database check). Still, the description is mostly transparent for a simple validation function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that cover the core action, input, algorithm, and output. It avoids unnecessary details. However, the phrasing 'Returns valid + check digit. Deterministic security-master validation.' reads slightly fragmented, which slightly detracts from polished structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it explains what is validated, the algorithm, and what is returned. Minor gaps include ambiguous output format (e.g., how 'valid' is represented) and vague term 'security-master validation' without further explanation. Nonetheless, it provides sufficient context for basic usage.
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 schema describes the single parameter 'cusip' as '9-character CUSIP.' The description adds meaningful context by specifying it is a US/Canada securities identifier and explaining the mod-10 check digit algorithm, which enriches the agent's understanding of the input format and purpose beyond the schema's basic description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates a CUSIP identifier, specifies its structure (9-character US/Canada securities identifier), and mentions the algorithm (mod-10 weighted check digit). This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling validation tools for other identifier types like ABA, BIC, etc., providing a specific verb+resource combination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for CUSIP validation but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools for other identifier formats. While the purpose is clear, the lack of exclusionary or comparative statements limits the agent's ability to choose correctly among many validation siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool is deterministic and performs check digit validation, but does not disclose behavior on invalid input (e.g., returns false vs. throws error) or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief, two sentences, with no extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves out what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error message). It covers the input format and purpose but could be more explicit about output behavior.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a brief description. The tool description adds value by specifying the check digit calculation and the context of GLN usage, going beyond the schema's minimal description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates a GS1 GLN, specifying it's 13 digits with a mod-10 check digit. It explains the purpose of GLNs in supply chains, distinguishing it from other validation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use the tool (for GLN validation) and characterizes it as deterministic. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the specificity of the identifier makes the use case clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns metadata only (no values), cursor-paginated ordering, optional prefix filter. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but as a read operation this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load core purpose and ordering, then quickly cover pagination, filter, and guidance to sibling tool. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains that it returns metadata and directs to another tool for values. It could be more explicit about the response fields (e.g., keys with updatedAt), but for a list tool with three parameters, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds 'newest-first by updatedAt' which contextualizes the order but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'keys in memory namespace', the ordering 'newest-first by updatedAt', pagination method 'cursor-paginated', and an optional prefix filter. It distinguishes from siblings like agent.memory.get (fetch values) and agent.memory.put (store).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage: it returns metadata only and directs to agent.memory.get for values. It implies when to use (listing keys) but does not explicitly list exclusions or prerequisites. The mention of an alternative tool enhances guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (~307k US airframes, OpenSky, CC-BY-SA) and return fields (make/model/owner/operator + icao24), providing useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention error cases or rate limits, but is sufficiently transparent for a lookup tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. Every sentence adds meaningful information: input constraints, return content, data source. Front-loaded with the core action and examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description covers return fields (make/model/owner/operator + icao24) and context (regional scope, data attribution). It is complete for a straightforward lookup, though missing details on error handling or authentication.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Pass exactly one' and giving examples (N757F, aa3487), guiding parameter semantics beyond the schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('Look up') and resources ('US-registered aircraft') with concrete examples (tail number, icao24). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like aircraft.profile by specifying the output includes icao24 for flight tracking, and targets US airframes. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage instructions ('Pass exactly one') but omits when to use this tool over alternatives like aircraft.profile or flight.status. No explicit exclusions or context for sibling differentiation, making the guidance implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 returns aircraft record plus per-name sanctions screen with confidence and flagged, and notes that name-based screening is probabilistic. However, it does not mention rate limits, permissions, or edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus a contextual line, all front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the parameter count and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (aircraft record + sanctions screen with confidence/flagged) and the probabilistic nature. It is fairly complete but could elaborate on response format or confidence interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% with descriptions for 'tail' and 'icao24' but not 'threshold'. The description repeats scheme info (identify by tail or icao24) but adds no new meaning beyond what's in the schema. No additional explanation for threshold or any param.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool identifies a US-registered aircraft by tail or icao24 and screens owner/operator against OFAC sanctions. It distinguishes from sibling 'aircraft.lookup' by adding sanctions screening, and specifies use cases like OSINT and asset-tracing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when both aircraft info and OFAC screening are needed) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use. The mention of 'in one call' contrasts with separate calls, but no sibling names are given for exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses fuzzy matching and return fields, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, error handling, or whether it returns single/multiple results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence enumerates capabilities, the second adds a key feature (fuzzy matching). Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers what is returned and a key behavior (fuzzy matching). Lacks mention of multiple matches or error cases (e.g., unknown species), but is largely complete.
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 single parameter 'name' has schema coverage of 100% with a clear description. The tool description adds value by specifying that it accepts both scientific and common names and fuzzy-matches misspellings, going beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool resolves organism names to the GBIF taxonomic backbone, listing specific outputs like accepted name, lineage, vernacular names, occurrence count, and link. It distinguishes from siblings like bio.gene and bio.protein by focusing on species taxonomy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use by saying 'resolve any organism', and the sibling context shows differentiation from other biological tools. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a read-only lookup (implied by 'look up'), returns specific data, and has rate limits. No destructive behavior is suggested, but error handling or response format is not mentioned, which is acceptable for a simple lookup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: the first clearly states the action and output, the second adds the rate limit. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides all essential information: what it does, what it returns, and the rate limit. It does not specify error behavior or format requirements, which are minor gaps but acceptable for a lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'repo', with a clear description 'GitHub "owner/name" slug.' The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (look up a public GitHub repository by owner/name) and enumerates returned fields (description, language, topics, etc.), distinguishing it from any sibling tool which are unrelated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by specifying the rate limit (60 req/hr/IP unauthenticated), which guides usage. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, but the single-purpose nature makes this less critical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It comprehensively lists return fields (names, ISO codes, region, capital, etc.), indicating a read-only, safe operation. No contradictory statements observed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, no extraneous words. First sentence defines the tool and parameters, second lists return fields. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: input parameters, usage, and return fields. It adequately compensates for missing annotations and schema coverage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of each parameter: alpha2 and alpha3 as ISO 3166-1 codes, and fullText for exact match. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is for country metadata lookup using specific identifiers (alpha2, alpha3, name) and mentions optional fullText exact match. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which are country-specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies the lookup keys (alpha2, alpha3, name) and the fullText option, which implies usage, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives. The sibling list is large but lacks a directly competing tool, reducing the need for exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'full checksum verification (not just regex)', revealing the depth of validation. No contradictions with annotations (none provided). It could mention authorization or rate limits, but for a validation tool, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with only 26 words. The primary action is front-loaded. Every sentence provides distinct value: validation method, benefit, and supported chains. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple validation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key parameters, and usage context. It does not specify return format or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable. It could mention that it returns a boolean or status.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (description field is generic). The description compensates by listing supported chains ('btc, eth, sol, ltc, trx, xrp, bch') for the chain parameter, and implicitly requires an address. However, it adds no format details for the address parameter. It partially adds value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (validate), resource (cryptocurrency address), and method (full checksum verification, not just regex). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crypto.ens-resolve, crypto.gas-oracle, etc., which handle other crypto-related functions. The supported chains are explicitly listed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates usage before sending funds ('catches typos before sending funds'). It implies the tool is for pre-transaction validation but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses source (priority-fee percentiles over trailing 4 blocks) and includes transfer cost. Could mention read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences; front-loaded with purpose and key details. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter and no output schema, description covers what is returned and which chains are supported. Could mention it is a read-only operation.
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?
Schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). Description compensates by listing supported chains (base, ethereum, polygon, arbitrum, optimism), adding meaning beyond schema defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool is a live EVM gas oracle returning slow/standard/fast tiers and a 21k gas transfer cost, and lists supported chains. It distinguishes from related crypto tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for gas estimation but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool vs alternatives. Context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context: it indicates a read-only operation returning rates. It lists optional parameters and defaults (e.g., base default USD), but does not mention failure modes, rate limits, or output format details. Sufficient for a simple query but lacking in depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence followed by a concise list of parameters. It is well-structured with the main purpose first and no wasteful words, earning its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the data source, scope, parameter usage, and defaults. It does not describe the response format but is otherwise complete. Sibling comparisons are absent but not critical here.
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 schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions. The overall description adds meaning: it states the default for base (USD), the format for date (YYYY-MM-DD; omit for latest), and explains amount. This compensates for schema gaps and provides usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides 'Daily reference exchange rates from the European Central Bank (via Frankfurter)' covering '30+ major currencies', which is a specific verb+resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'treasury.exchange-rates' which provide different sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies the data source and scope (ECB, major currencies), implying use for European reference rates. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the context of sibling tools and clear source provides sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses that each category has an independent found/error block and mentions default/max radius and temporal scope (past-week earthquakes). However, it does not cover caching, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences that front-load the most important information (categories and output features), followed by parameter details and use cases. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description hints at the return structure (distance, found/error block per category). For a multi-category aggregate tool, this is fairly complete, though it could provide an example or more structure detail.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds meaning by explaining radiusKm default and max, and noting that 'limit' applies per category. It does not elaborate on lat/lon, but these are self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly lists all categories (airports, schools, climate stations, earthquakes) and the output features (distance, found/error blocks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'airport.near' or 'climate.station-near' by stating it's 'everything around a coordinate in one call'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for usage ('site assessment, relocation research, risk screening') and implies it replaces multiple individual calls (e.g., airport.near, climate.station-near). However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or cases when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only resolution operation, lists the supported countries, and outlines what data is returned. It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but the behavior is sufficiently clear for a typical lookup tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core functionality. Every sentence provides essential information, with no redundancy or filler words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (place names, administrative divisions, coordinates). It also includes use cases. However, it lacks details on error handling or response format, but this is acceptable for a straightforward lookup tool with few parameters.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the default country (US) and listing the supported international markets, providing context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'postal/ZIP code', and details the output (place names, administrative divisions, coordinates). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying international coverage and listing countries, and provides use cases like normalizing addresses or deriving state/county.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you have a postal code) and mentions the required input format, but it does not explicitly guide when to avoid this tool compared to alternatives like geocode.address or census.zipcode. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two query modes but does not mention permissions, rate limits, side effects, or return format. Given it's a read tool, the lack of detail is acceptable but not excellent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and usage patterns. No wasted words: the first sentence identifies the source, the second explains the two invocation modes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and parameter combinations. It omits details like the fact that chamber is an enum (house/senate) and the behavior of pagination parameters. Overall, it is fairly complete but has minor gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds crucial meaning: it explains the roles of congress, chamber, jacketNumber, and the date range parameters. It does not detail limit/offset or the enum values for chamber, but it provides the essential interaction logic for the two use cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'US Congressional hearings' and specifies two distinct modes: single hearing retrieval via congress+chamber+jacketNumber, and listing with optional date range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gov.congress-bill or gov.congress-member.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use each mode (single hearing vs listing) and which parameters to combine. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search scope and output fields (name, register number, facility, release dates). However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, error handling, or pagination. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and time range, then succinctly covers input and output. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a good overview of input combinations and return fields. It does not cover limits or error scenarios, but it is reasonably complete for a search tool.
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?
Schema coverage is only 14% (one parameter described). The description compensates by explaining the two search methods (lastName with optional filters, or inmateNumber) and provides an example format for inmateNumber. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's types and enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate search, specifies the time range (1982-present, current+released), and lists search methods. It distinguishes itself from other tools in the sibling list, which are mostly different government services.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly tells when to use: when searching for federal inmates. It provides two search methods but does not explicitly state when to prefer one over the other or mention alternatives for state inmates. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 queries a database of ~10M records per year, supports lookup by multiple fields, and returns specific data (recipient, payer, payment, product). It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior, but is still fairly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: first sets context (source, volume), second explains lookup and return data. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields. It mentions volume (~10M records) implying pagination needs but does not explicitly explain offset/limit. Overall sufficient for a lookup tool.
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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by grouping lookup parameters (NPI, name, payer, state) and explaining return fields. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description compensates by providing context on how to use parameters, though it doesn't detail every parameter (e.g., limit, offset).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: querying CMS Open Payments data (Sunshine Act payments) from pharma/device manufacturers to US physicians or teaching hospitals. It specifies the data volume, lookup parameters (NPI, name, payer, state), and return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling health tools like health.hospital-lookup or health.medicare-provider.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly suggests usage for payment data lookups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to consider.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses matching behavior and return format but omits details like rate limits, authentication, or read-only nature. Decent but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. Each sentence provides essential information: purpose and output, then input requirements and matching behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers input requirements, matching behavior, and output type. Lacks explanation of 'CL IDs' but is otherwise complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 67%; the description adds value by specifying that at least one of name or firmName must be supplied and clarifying matching logic (title-case + startswith), going beyond schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches for attorneys by name and/or firm, returning parsed records. It distinguishes from sibling tools like law.case-search and law.judge-lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly requires at least one of name or firmName and notes case-insensitive matching. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the data source (real-time USPTO TSDR) and lists output fields (word mark, status, owner, etc.), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states the purpose and outputs, second adds authoritative context. No wasted words; essential information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description lists key output fields. Two parameters are well-explained. Sibling context is clear. Missing guidance on what happens if both parameters are provided or neither, but overall sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds useful constraints: serial number must be 8 digits, registration number 6-8 digits, and they are XOR. This enriches the schema's minimal descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a clear action (verify a US trademark), resource (by USPTO serial or registration number), and outlines specific outputs (word mark, status, owner, etc.). It distinguishes itself from text-search tools like law.trademark-search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The note 'Number lookup only (no text search)' explicitly tells when not to use it. It also advises using the tool instead of model memory for accuracy. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for text search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains what data is returned (name, credentials, specialties, etc.) and implies it's a read-only lookup. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, rate limits, or pagination behavior (skip/limit) beyond what's in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states the registry and purpose, second details input and output. No redundant words, all information is front-loaded and necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential use cases and return types. It omits details on pagination and enumeration types, but those are in the schema. Overall sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capability.
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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by grouping firstName+lastName+state as an alternative to NPI. Although schema covers 50% of parameters, the description clarifies the primary usage patterns, which aids correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a US healthcare provider lookup via NPPES NPI Registry, specifies input methods (NPI or name+state), and lists output fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like health.provider-profile or health.hospital-lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states the two lookup modes: by 10-digit NPI for precise match or by firstName+lastName+state. This provides clear guidance on when to use each. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully describes return values (verified flag, exact match, child codes, billable status, descriptions), data source, and update frequency. It implies read-only behavior and clarifies code format flexibility. Lacks explicit statement on side effects or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three compact sentences front-load the purpose, detail the output, and cite data source. No fluff; each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, return fields, data provenance, and update cycle. No output schema exists, so the description compensates well. Missing pagination hints and error handling details, but sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 75% description coverage. The description adds value by explaining what is returned but does not provide new semantics for individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers. Schemas for code, q, billable_only, and limit are clear; description reinforces mutual exclusivity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool verifies ICD-10-CM codes or performs keyword searches, with specific examples and differentiation between the two modes. It uses strong action verbs and specifies the resource (diagnosis codes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Provide exactly one of code or q,' guiding proper usage. Provides context about the data set (FY2026, official US) but does not mention when to use alternatives like medical.rxnorm or health tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that data is real analyzed values (not estimated), names the data source, and explains what each mode returns. No mention of auth or rate limits, but the read-only nature is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first gives source and scope, second details modes and data types. Front-loaded, no redundant words. Earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers scope, data source, return values for both modes, and compares to estimated nutrition facts. Missing pagination hints or error handling, but given no output schema, it provides sufficient context for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 60% with decent parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the query/fdcId XOR relationship and data quality, but does not elaborate on dataType, limit, or page beyond schema. It meets the baseline but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a USDA FoodData Central nutrition lookup with ~400k foods. It specifies two modes: search by name to get fdcId results, or fetch by fdcId for full nutrient profiles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like food.barcode-lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides concrete examples (query=cheddar cheese, fdcId=328637) and explains the two use cases. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the clear mode differentiation is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are candidates, not resolved, and advises verification with registry identifiers. It also mentions per-registry found/error blocks. It does not discuss rate limits or destructive actions, but the nature (sweeping search) implies read-only, which is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: first sentence lists registries, second explains candidate nature, third gives use case. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Ideal structure for quick agent comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description mentions 'Per-registry found/error blocks with matching records,' which provides sufficient context about the return structure. It could elaborate on exact record fields per registry, but the high-level completeness is adequate for agent triage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions for 'name' and 'limit' in the schema. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format tips or additional constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sweeps a person name across five specific US public registries, lists them explicitly, and distinguishes that results are name-matched candidates, not identity-resolved. This differentiates it from single-registry siblings like license.broker or law.attorney-lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly guides usage by stating 'Due-diligence and background-research triage,' indicating when to use the tool for broad cross-registry searches. It does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives like individual registry tools, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 returns specific fields and supports filtering, but does not mention side effects, rate limits, authentication, or pagination behavior. The description 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and lists key features efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 fields well. It addresses main filtering aspects but misses pagination details (limit, offset). Overall, sufficiently complete for a simple query tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates by listing key filter parameters (bbl, address, jobType, permitStatus) with example values. It does not describe limit/offset parameters. Overall, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves NYC DOB construction permits, with specific filtering parameters (bbl, address, jobType, permitStatus) and lists return fields. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like property.nyc-deed-history and property.nyc-violations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context for permit lookups, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternative tools. However, the sibling names provide context, so usage is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It mentions data source, update frequency, and return fields, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, default behavior (limit=20 is in schema but not description), and whether it's read-only. More transparency would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with key information (source and scope), then filters and returns. No verbose or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a complete overview: what the tool does, what you can filter by, and what you get back. It lacks mention of pagination, sorting, or error handling, but is adequate for a query tool with few parameters.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists the filterable parameters (name, hostStar, discoveryYear, method) and indicates return fields, adding meaning beyond the schema types. However, it does not explain accepted values for method or other constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool queries confirmed exoplanets from a specific authoritative source (NASA Exoplanet Archive), with scope (~6k, weekly updated). It differentiates from sibling space tools by focusing on exoplanets specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use the tool (to access exoplanet data) and lists filterable fields, implying query scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives like space.system or space.body for related searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the computation (JPL elements, validated vs Horizons) and outputs (RA/Dec, magnitude, altitude/azimuth, visible-now flag, viewing window). No mention of side effects, but for a read-only query, it is adequately transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence covers the core purpose and outputs; the second adds optional observer-location features. Very front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns. It covers both geocentric and observer-based outputs. It could mention error handling for invalid bodies, but for a straightforward query tool, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 20% (only 'body' has a description). The tool description explains that 'lat' and 'lon' are for observer location to get altitude/azimuth, and implies 'at' for viewing window, but 'altKm' is not mentioned. Description adds value but does not fully compensate for low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it propagates JPL orbital elements to give geocentric RA/Dec, constellation, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like space.body or space.close-approaches by focusing on sky visibility and viewing windows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description opens with 'Where is an asteroid/comet in the sky and can you see it?' which clearly indicates when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries the burden. It discloses the tool groups planets, summarizes the host star, computes habitable zone in AU, and flags planets within it. No destructive actions or auth needs are mentioned, but the core behavior is well described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states purpose and example, second details functionality. No redundant words. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently explains inputs and outputs. It does not mention error handling (e.g., unrecognized star), but core functionality is covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'hostStar' with description 'Host star name.' The description adds an example ('TRAPPIST-1') which provides context but is not essential beyond the schema. Baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'profile' and resource 'confirmed exoplanetary system by host-star name' with an example ('TRAPPIST-1'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like space.exoplanet (single planet) and space.body (celestial body) by focusing on system synthesis including habitable zone computation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies when to use (when needing a system profile with habitable zone) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings. The example and detailed functionality give clear context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool executes JavaScript in a headless browser, which is a key behavioral trait not derivable from the schema or annotations (which are absent). It also mentions the output formats are the same as url.clean and notes the cost multiplier. However, it does not discuss rate limits, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only, though the 'render' action implies read-only behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and front-loads the key distinction (headless browser > url.clean). It is efficient and contains no wasted words. A slight improvement could be adding a structured breakdown of parameters, but overall it is concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and key behavioral aspects (JS rendering, cost). The input schema provides enums and defaults, so the lack of parameter elaboration is partially compensated. However, for a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description could be more complete by detailing the optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'Same formats (markdown/text/both/html/pdf),' which covers the format parameter but does not elaborate on the enum meanings. The waitUntil and timeoutMs parameters are not mentioned at all, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose or defaults. The url parameter is obvious from the usage description but not explicitly detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that url.render is like url.clean but uses a headless browser for JavaScript execution, targeting client-rendered/SPA pages. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool url.clean by specifying the type of page it handles, so the agent can select the correct tool based on rendering needs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to 'Use url.clean for server-rendered pages,' which implies using this tool for client-rendered pages. It also notes that it is Tier 2 (10x cost) compared to url.clean, providing practical guidance on cost implications and when to choose which tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses validation logic (Luhn check), format, return fields (valid, country, nsin, CUSIP), and a special feature (catching transposed chars). It does not discuss error handling or rate limits, but covers core behavior well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences effectively communicate purpose, structure, returns, and a key behavior. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and format, while the second adds valuable output details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter validation tool without an output schema, the description covers format, validation, return values, and a special edge-case behavior. Missing details on error responses or response schema, but overall sufficiently complete for its complexity.
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 schema describes the parameter as '12-character ISIN.' The description adds significant meaning by breaking down the ISIN structure (country, NSIN, check digit) and noting CUSIP extraction for US/CA. This enriches the schema's minimal description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it validates an ISIN, explains its structure (2-letter country + 9-char NSIN + Luhn check digit), and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying what it returns (country, nsin, CUSIP for US/CA).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the distinct name and purpose imply usage for ISIN validation among siblings with different identifiers, there is no direct comparison or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source (CoinGecko) and output fields, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, or data freshness. While it correctly indicates a read operation, additional behavioral details would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and data returned. Every clause adds necessary context: input format, example, limitations, and source attribution. No superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers input, output, and source. It answers likely agent questions: what data, how to format ids, and which currencies. The lack of output schema is compensated by specifying the data fields.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond schema: clarifies format (lowercase CoinGecko asset id, not tickers), gives examples, specifies max 25, and notes default currency. The sentence 'vs sets quote currencies (default usd)' reinforces the schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves current spot price, market cap, 24h volume, and 24h change for crypto assets. It specifies input format (CoinGecko asset id, lowercase, comma-separated) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on real-time price data, not addresses or transactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage guidance: input format with examples, maximum 25 ids, and quote currency parameter with default 'usd'. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the specificity (CoinGecko ids, not tickers) and sibling list (no other price tools) make context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses data source (senate.gov), update frequency (daily aggregated), and ordering (newest first). It does not mention pagination or errors, but the behavior is clearly read-only and well-scoped.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists filters without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main purpose and filters but lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, and what happens with no results. Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), more information would be beneficial.
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?
Schema coverage is only 13%, so the description must compensate. It lists most parameters (congress, session, result, document, date range) and provides an example for 'document'. However, it omits 'limit' and 'offset', leaving some gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves US Senate roll-call votes ordered newest first, with specific filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gov.house-votes' by specifying 'Senate'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (for Senate roll-call votes) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. It implicitly guides usage through its specificity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the data is public-domain and updated daily, and notes the optional historical retrieval scope (back to 2017). Does not mention potential rate limits or side effects, but as a read-only tool this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, front-loaded with action, no redundant phrases. Every sentence adds essential information: what it does, example, optional parameter, return fields, data quality. Very efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description lists all returned fields (citation, heading, plain text, source credit, eCFR link), explains the optional historical date with range, and notes data freshness and legality. An agent has sufficient information to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds marginal value through an example (title 17, section 240.10b-5) but does not provide new semantic details beyond what schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it fetches a US CFR section by title and section number with an example. The tool name and context distinguish it from sibling tools like law.usc-section (US Code) and law.federal-register. No confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: use for authoritative CFR full text, with optional historical date. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the specificity of 'Code of Federal Regulations' and example strongly guides appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description compensates by detailing the behavior: tld returns IANA root-zone metadata, domain runs the full PSL algorithm with specific fields (effective public suffix, registrable domain, etc.). It also mentions whether the suffix is ICANN or private. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single paragraph but packs relevant information efficiently. It front-loads the main purpose and uses examples. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate modes), but it's clear and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (two modes, multiple output fields) and lack of output schema, the description is thorough. It covers the main use cases, input semantics, and output details. No missing critical information.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond parameter descriptions. It clarifies the XOR relationship and explains what each parameter returns (tld for metadata, domain for PSL analysis). This helps the agent understand the semantic difference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it provides TLD registry info and Public Suffix List intelligence. It gives specific examples (tld=io, domain=shop.example.co.uk) and lists the distinct outputs for each mode. Distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only tool focused on TLD and PSL analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description explains the two input modes (tld vs domain) and provides specific use cases: cookie scoping, per-registrant rate limiting, URL dedup, abuse analysis. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to determine appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the algorithmic checksum (mod-10 3-7-1), return fields (valid, routingNumber, district), and a key behavior (catches transposed digits). It does not mention error handling for non-9-digit inputs, but the schema's description covers that constraint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states capability and method, the second lists outputs and benefit. Every sentence earns its place; front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers purpose, algorithm, outputs, and a use case. No gaps remain for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter. The tool description repeats the schema's 'routingNumber' concept but adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the validation method. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('Validate') and resources ('US bank ABA routing number') with a clear differentiator ('with the Federal Reserve weighted mod-10 checksum, not just a regex'). It distinguishes from sibling validation tools by focusing on ABA routing numbers and mentioning specific checksum logic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (for ACH/wire setup where transposed digits matter) but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions. However, the context of siblings (many validators) and the specific mention of 'not just a regex' provide sufficient implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 clearly states the tool only validates structure and does not perform directory lookups, which is key behavioral info. It also notes the country check against ISO 3166.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences (25 words), front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary information. It efficiently conveys all needed context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers purpose and behavior, it lacks detail on the return format beyond 'parsed parts.' No output schema is provided, so the agent may need more specifics on what exactly is returned. Given the simplicity, it is minimally complete but could improve.
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?
With 100% schema coverage and only one parameter, the description adds meaning by detailing the BIC format (8 or 11 chars), the components, and the ISO 3166 country check, going beyond the schema's minimal description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it validates a SWIFT/BIC code, explains the format (8 or 11 chars), lists the components, and distinguishes it from a directory lookup. It is specific and unique among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tells what the tool does and clarifies it is structure-only, not a directory lookup, providing implicit guidance on when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling validation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains what the tool returns (a full entry with various fields) and gives an example accession. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup tool, this is acceptable and transparent about the output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, content, and relationship to a sibling. There is no unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists typical return fields (names, gene, organism, etc.) and identifies the sibling tool. For a simple lookup with one parameter, this is fairly complete. However, it could mention that the response may be a large JSON object or include a note about potential missing fields.
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 schema describes the accession parameter with an example. The description reinforces this by providing an example accession (P04637) and clarifying it is a UniProtKB accession. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which already has 100% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool returns a full UniProtKB protein entry by accession, listing specific data fields (names, gene, organism, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from its sibling tool bio.gene, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly guides usage by stating it is a 'protein-centric sibling to bio.gene', suggesting when to use this tool vs. the gene tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools for different needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses holiday awareness, custom weekends, and that skipped holidays are itemized. It explains the XOR relationship between addDays and end. Could mention error handling or output format, but adequate for a calculation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two well-structured sentences. First sentence sets purpose and target users, second details modes and features. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the main behaviors: three modes, custom weekends, holiday itemization. Missing output format details, but for a calculation tool this is sufficient. Could mention that addDays and end are mutually exclusive.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the three modes, custom weekend syntax, and that skipped holidays are itemized, which goes beyond schema parameter definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a business-day calculator for 200+ countries with specific use cases (payment terms, SLA deadlines). It distinguishes from sibling 'calendar.holidays' by focusing on computation rather than listing holidays.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly details three modes of operation (start+addDays, start+end, start alone) and provides examples of custom weekends. It implies when to use (instead of guessing holidays) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: returns transaction status and receipt details, mentions live status, and error handling (404). It covers idempotency implicitly (lookup) but lacks explicit statements on auth or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise, front-loading the purpose and key details in a single sentence, followed by chains, usage guidance, and error handling. Minor improvement could be structuring the returned fields list more cleanly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the returned fields, supported chains, and error case, making it complete for an agent to understand correct invocation and interpretation.
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 description lists the chains for the 'chain' parameter and describes the hash as '0x-prefixed 32-byte transaction hash,' adding value beyond the schema (which only describes hash). It compensates for the schema's 50% parameter description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving live EVM transaction status and receipt by hash, listing specific fields and supported chains. It distinctly addresses transaction lookup, differentiating from sibling tools like crypto.address-validate or crypto.gas-oracle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Confirm a payment settled or a tx reverted before acting.' It also notes a 404 response for unknown hashes but does not mention alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: stripping scripts/nav/ads, extracting main content, preserving headings/links/lists. It could mention error handling or output format, but overall it is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with four sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though 'POST { html }' is slightly redundant with the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, how it processes HTML, and how it differs from similar tools. It is complete for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter description in the schema already includes the size limit. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'convert' and resource 'raw HTML into clean reading markdown'. It explicitly excludes URL fetching, distinguishing it from the sibling tool url.clean.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'no URL fetch' and points to url.clean for live URLs, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the return data (type, number, holder, status, dates, supervising broker) and query methods, but does not disclose rate limits or authentication requirements. It is sufficiently transparent for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then listing search and return details. Every word is useful, with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields and search criteria. However, it does not explain pagination behavior beyond the schema, and it could mention that only TX is supported.
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?
Schema coverage is 43% (3 of 7 parameters described), so the description compensates by explaining that name supports partial match, licenseType is partial, and status is e.g. 'Active'. It also clarifies the required state and the return fields, adding meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool verifies US real estate licenses, specifically for Texas TREC, and lists the license types (brokers, sales agents, broker companies). It distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like license.broker and license.medical.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies it is for TX real estate license verification and lists searchable fields, implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, but description makes clear it is a read-only lookup returning license details. No potential destructive effects or hidden behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence packed with essential information: purpose, scope, search parameters, and return fields. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Mentions return fields and trade list. Lacks explicit pagination details, but limit and offset are in schema. Sufficient for a query tool.
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?
Adds meaning beyond schema by naming specific search parameters (name, licenseNumber, licenseType, county) and partial match behavior. Schema coverage is low, so description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it does US trade/occupational license verification for Texas TDLR, listing specific trades and search parameters. Distinguishes well from sibling tools for other license types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Indicates usage for trade license verification, with context on state and trades. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear given sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description covers behavioral aspects by noting it returns fresh information and supports various parameters (paging, country, freshness, safesearch). It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the tool is read-only and non-destructive, so the description adequately sets expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence conveys the core purpose and output, and the second lists supported features. It is front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields (title, URL, snippet, site name, page age). It covers all key functional aspects. Minor omission: does not specify maximum results per page or ordering, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 50%, but the description adds context for parameters: 'Supports paging (count/offset)' explains the paging mechanism, and 'freshness (pd/pw/pm/py or date range)' clarifies the format. This adds meaning beyond the schema, especially for the 'freshness' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool performs web search and lists the returned fields (title, URL, snippet, site name, page age). It also emphasizes real-time data, distinguishing it from other tools that are specialized (e.g., news.search, papers.search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use for current events, fact verification, documentation, research.' While it does not mention when not to use or exclude alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for most scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description characterizes the tool as providing 'Live' and 'Real-time severe-weather data', implying it is read-only. No annotations are provided, but the description adequately conveys that this is a query tool with no destructive behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, highly informative with no redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: data source, input options, filtering, and sorting. It could mention the return format, but current completeness is good.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of point/area, the effect of severity/urgency filters, and the default limit of 20. The sorting behavior is also mentioned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides live US NWS active alerts for a point or area, with severity/urgency filters and sorting. It distinguishes from siblings like weather.zip by focusing on watches/warnings/advisories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use (for alerts on a point or area) and mentions optional filters. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description discloses it returns ranked candidates with relevance score, syllable count, and grammar tags. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only lookup this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no waste: first sentence states the tool's function, second details usage and output. Information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input, relation types, and output fields. It omits mention of limit parameter but schema fills that gap.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%; the description adds meaning for 'word' and 'relation' (listing all enum values) but does not mention the 'limit' parameter. However, the schema defines limit with default, min, max.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'related-word lookup via Datamuse' and enumerates all relation kinds (rhymes, synonyms, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like word.define.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It instructs the user to supply a seed word and relation kind, listing the options. It implies the context for synonym/antonym lookups but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully explains the tool's behavior: it searches book metadata and returns specific fields. It does not disclose rate limits or authentication requirements, but for a read-only search this is acceptable. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three succinct sentences with no extraneous information. First sentence states purpose, second explains query modes, third lists returns. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all intended behaviors, query modes, and return fields. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional inference.
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?
Schema coverage is only 17% (only isbn described), but description adds meaning for q, title, author, and isbn parameters by explaining their usage (free-text, individual lookups). Page and limit are not described but have defaults and ranges in schema. Overall, description compensates well for low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states it is an Open Library book metadata search, lists specific query modes (free-text, title, author, ISBN), and enumerates return fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are unrelated to book search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes three distinct lookup patterns: free-text query, individual title/author, or ISBN. Provides clear context for when to use each parameter, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a live lookup on Ethereum mainnet, returns both forward and reverse resolutions, and includes text records like avatar and email. It also explains the limitation of sandboxed agents, adding behavioral context. Missing details on rate limits or authentication, but adequate given simplicity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core functionality and uses a colon to separate the summary from details. Every part is informative and earned its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it (forward and reverse), what additional data is returned, and why it's needed (sandbox limitation). No critical information seems missing.
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 only parameter 'query' is described in the schema as 'ENS name or 0x address.' The description enriches this by providing an example (vitalik.eth) and explaining that passing an address triggers reverse resolution. It also lists the additional text records returned. This adds significant meaning beyond the minimal schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool resolves ENS names to addresses on Ethereum mainnet and performs reverse lookups. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crypto.address-validate by specifying ENS-specific functionality and mentioning additional text records. The verb 'resolve' combined with resource 'ENS' is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for when to use this tool by stating that on-chain lookup agents cannot perform this from a sandbox. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. The implication is clear for agents needing ENS data, but explicit exclusion of other crypto tools would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes input modes, default status (live), and return fields (wordmark, serial, etc.). Does not mention rate limits or authentication, but given no annotations, description carries full burden and covers core behavior well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single paragraph with clear structure: purpose first, then input modes and filters, then return fields, ending with sibling guidance. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all 8 parameters in description, lists return fields despite no output schema. Moderate complexity; description is thorough enough for effective use.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining default behavior for status (live=registered+pending, all includes dead) and identifying return fields. Provides context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it searches US trademarks by wordmark text, owner, or goods/services. Distinguishes from sibling law.trademark-status by noting it provides full-text search without a public API, and that law.trademark-status is for prosecution details on known serials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use query (full-text best-match) vs serial/registrationNumber (exact record). Also directs to law.trademark-status for live prosecution detail on a known serial, providing alternative when appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return fields (citation, heading, hierarchy, full text, source credit, OLRC link) and the effect of includeNotes. No annotations exist, so description adequately covers behavior for a read-only tool. Missing error or limitation disclosure, but sufficient for this simple operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, input format, optional feature, and return contents. No gaps for agent decision-making.
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?
Schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining section parameter handles hyphenated/lettered sections and that includeNotes adds amendment history, going beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it fetches authoritative US Code section text, with specific example (title 17, section 107) and distinguishes from sibling tools like law.case-search and law.cfr-section by focusing on statutory code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implicitly guides use for verifying statutory citations instead of relying on model memory, and the context of sibling tools helps differentiate. However, no explicit 'do not use' statements for alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description covers term vs rxcui XOR, returns ranked candidates, normalizes names, tolerates typos. Could mention limit or pagination but adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three well-structured sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, specific usage examples, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description lists return values for each mode. Could mention limit parameter effect. Good completeness for a 3-param lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds significant meaning beyond schema with concrete examples (tylenol 500mg, rxcui lookup returns related concepts). Schema coverage 67% but description fully compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool normalizes and verifies drug names against RxNorm, and distinguishes it from sibling medical.icd10 by specifying drug vocabulary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains when to use (verify drugs, get stable identifiers instead of model memory) and mentions sibling, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data is delayed, lists returned fields, and implies read-only behavior. Could be more explicit about non-destructiveness, but sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each well-padded: first lists fields, second provides usage note. No redundant information, front-loaded with key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter and no output schema, the description comprehensively lists returned fields and notes the delayed flag. Adequately explains behavior for a simple quote tool.
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?
Input schema covers ticker with description (100% coverage). The description adds examples, including dotted tickers (BRK.B), and specifies US-listed, providing additional context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the latest daily stock quote for a US-listed ticker, listing specific fields. It provides examples (AAPL, MSFT, BRK.B) and distinguishes from siblings like crypto.token-price or finance.company-profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly notes the data is end-of-day/delayed and intended for daily snapshots and post-close analysis, not real-time trading, offering clear usage guidance. It does not directly name alternative tools but contextually differentiates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: real-time validation, VIES coverage, conditional return of name/address, and return fields. No mention of rate limits or auth, but sufficient for this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise single paragraph with no wasted words. Dense but efficient; could be slightly more structured with line breaks, but information density is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, description lists all return fields (valid, countryCode, etc.) and explains input nuances, coverage, and limitations. Complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Fully covered schema with added examples (e.g., DE811569869), distinction between vat vs country+number, and specific country codes (EL, XI). Adds meaningful usage guidance beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates EU VAT numbers against VIES in real time, with specific mention of EU states, Northern Ireland, and exclusion of Great Britain. It distinguishes itself from sibling validation tools by focusing on VAT.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear when-to-use context for EU VAT validation, input options (vat OR country+number), and coverage details. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but scope is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It states the tool is deterministic, performs checksum validation, and returns specific fields (valid, type, canonical GTIN-14). It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but for a simple validation tool this is sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly packed sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states purpose and valid formats; the second adds return details and deterministic nature. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains what is validated, what is returned, and adds a note about determinism. It also contextualizes among siblings by specifying product barcode types.
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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'gtin', describing it as a barcode with allowed spaces/hyphens. The tool description adds value by specifying the allowed barcode formats and the return type, which enriches semantics beyond the schema alone. Baseline is 3 due to coverage, but the extra context justifies a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Validate a product barcode' and lists specific formats (GTIN-8/12/13/14, UPC-A, EAN-13, ISBN-10/13), clearly distinguishing it from sibling validation tools like validate.aba or validate.iban. It also states the return values, making the tool's purpose very specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists the exact barcode types it handles, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some room for interpretation. Nonetheless, the specificity provides strong guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that validation includes country-specific length and mod-97 checksum, is deterministic, covers ~85 countries, and returns specific fields. It does not mention side effects or access requirements, which are unlikely for a validation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and summarizing benefits. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns and its deterministic nature, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter. The description adds clarity by noting that spaces/hyphens are allowed and input is case-insensitive, which goes beyond the schema's type description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates IBANs with full ISO 13616 checks, distinguishing it from simple regex validation. It also lists the return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using this tool instead of doing checksum math in an LLM, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to sibling validate tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it validates check digits and returns normalized LEI and LOU prefix, which is transparent for a simple validation tool. No additional behavioral traits are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences front-loaded with the action and algorithm, followed by output and use case. No unnecessary information, each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input schema (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully explains the tool's purpose, behavior, and context. No gaps remain.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters (one 'lei' string). The description adds value by explaining the validation algorithm (ISO 7064 mod-97-10) and the output fields, which go beyond the schema's parameter description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it validates a Legal Entity Identifier using ISO 7064 check digits, returns normalized LEI and LOU prefix, and distinguishes it from other validate tools by specifying the identifier type and algorithm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions confirming a counterparty/vendor LEI before GLEIF lookup, providing context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly for other identifiers, so the usage is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it includes substitute days, covers 200+ countries and subdivisions, computes movable feasts, and returns structured data. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs relevant details without being verbose, though it could be slightly more structured. Each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the return fields (date, name, type, substitute, rule), the scope (200+ countries, subdivisions), and features (filtering, localization). No gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of each parameter (e.g., types as filter, lang for localization) and the overall functionality. The schema provides technical constraints, but the description enriches understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists official holidays for a country and year, with details like exact observed dates and substitute days. It specifies the resource (holidays) and action (list), distinguishing it from sibling tools like calendar.business-days.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use this tool (to get official holidays with precise dates and types) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully explains two distinct behaviors (exact lookup returns duty rates; free-text returns ranked candidates). It also notes the data source (USITC) and scope (~29.6k lines), offering good transparency beyond a simple read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: the first defines the action, the second details the two modes with inputs and outputs, the third mentions data source and purpose. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return values for both modes (duty rates for exact, ranked candidates for query). It also specifies data size and source, leaving no gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds significant context: for 'code' it explains the output includes stat suffixes and duty rates; for 'query' it explains ranking by hierarchical heading. This enhances the schema meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool looks up or searches US tariffs, differentiates between exact code lookup and free-text query, and specifies the output (duty rates for exact, ranked codes for query). No sibling tool overlaps with this function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to pass a code vs a query, providing clear usage guidance. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but for a single-purpose tariff tool, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden. It discloses output fields: punctuated transcript, confidence, duration, language, word timestamps, and optional speaker utterances. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but packs multiple clauses; could be structured for easier parsing. Front-loaded with main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description must explain return values. It does so comprehensively, including constraints and splitting behavior. Fully adequate for its complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds context beyond schema: language auto-detection, default diarize=false, and output implications. Adds moderate value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool transcribes audio to text and lists supported formats, size/duration limits, and output details. It uniquely identifies the tool among diverse siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides constraints (formats, ≤15 MB, ≤15 min, splitting) but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. However, no sibling transcription tool exists, so it's adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: deterministic, returns results in input order with index and type, each result has valid/reason plus type-specific fields, and error handling degrades per item only. This is comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then input/output structure, then error behavior. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers capacity, input format, output structure, and error handling. With no output schema, it provides sufficient context. Minor omission: no mention of what happens if input array is empty or entirely invalid, but overall complete.
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 already covers the structure with 100% coverage, but the description adds value by enumerating the allowed types, explaining the output fields, and clarifying that errors affect only the bad item.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates up to 100 mixed identifiers in one call, lists the supported types, and explicitly distinguishes it from single-endpoint validators by mentioning it collapses checksum checks into one round-trip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use (batch validation with up to 100 mixed identifiers) and implies it saves round trips, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like single-validate tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: stateless, no JavaScript, non-recursive, auto-detection, absolute URL resolution, deduplication, and http(s)-only. It also explains parameter effects. There is no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists key constraints and parameters. Every phrase adds value; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity and absence of output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, input parameters, limitations, and behavior comprehensively. The agent has sufficient information to use the tool correctly.
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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates well by explaining limit's range and default, and sameHostOnly's function. However, it could elaborate more on what 'keeps same-host links' entails (e.g., filtering behavior).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Discover' and the resource 'URLs a page or sitemap points at'. It distinguishes between XML sitemap entries and HTML links, and lists key features (auto-detected, resolved-absolute, deduped, http(s)-only). This differentiates it from sibling tools like url.clean or url.unfurl.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly notes 'Stateless, no JS, NOT a recursive crawler — re-call on a child sitemap/page to go deeper', which tells when to use (single fetch) and when not (no recursion). It also explains the limit and sameHostOnly parameters, but lacks explicit references to alternative tools for recursive crawling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details determinism, case-insensitivity, alias tolerance, return of exact result plus dimension, rejection of cross-dimension, and use of ground-truth factors. This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using a few sentences that convey all necessary information without redundancy. Every sentence adds value: listing supported units, clarifying behavior, and noting limitations. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description explains return values (exact result + dimension). It covers all necessary aspects: supported unit types, case-insensitivity, alias handling, dimension constraints, and deterministic nature. Complete for a unit conversion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that units are case-insensitive with aliases, that conversion requires same dimensions, and that the return includes exact result and dimension. This enriches the agent's understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs unit-of-measure conversion, lists supported dimensions (mass, length, volume, area, temperature), and explicitly differentiates itself from potential alternatives by emphasizing deterministic behavior and ground-truth factors. No sibling tool overlaps with this functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool for unit conversion within the same dimension, and explicitly states that cross-dimension conversions (kg→m) are rejected. It lacks explicit mention of when not to use, but the context of siblings and the tool's specific purpose makes usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, but the description fully discloses behavior: it returns parsed holdings sorted by descending value, converts market values from SEC's $000s convention to USD, and includes voting authority. There is 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains the source (Form 13F-HR), return fields, sorting, value conversion, and example CIKs. No gaps are apparent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for managerCik, formType, and limit. The description adds significant value by listing the returned fields and providing common CIK values, which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool parses institutional holdings from SEC Form 13F-HR for a specific manager identified by CIK, and lists the specific fields returned (nameOfIssuer, cusip, market value, etc.). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like finance.sec-filings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides common CIK examples (Berkshire Hathaway, Renaissance, etc.) to guide usage, and mentions that the default form type is 13F-HR with alternatives for amendments. It does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with siblings, but the specificity is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sdk MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/2s-io/sdk/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/2s-io/sdk)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sdk MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/2s-io/sdk/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/2s-io/sdk)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/2s-io/sdk'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server