EVE Online Companion MCP Server

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 that the tool returns total buy and sell values, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, data freshness, error handling) or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool that processes market data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by output details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (batch appraisal with market data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, input source, and output values, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like data accuracy or prerequisites. It provides enough context for basic use but leaves some operational details unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'items' parameter format. The description adds value by explaining the input source ('paste from in-game asset list or cargo scan') and implying batch processing, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. With 0 parameters beyond the single documented one, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Appraise') and resource ('a list of items'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'eve_market_price' or 'eve_market_orders' by focusing on batch valuation from in-game data. It specifies the input source ('paste from in-game asset list or cargo scan') and output ('total buy and sell value'), making the purpose explicit and distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for appraising items from in-game sources like asset lists or cargo scans. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'eve_market_price' for single items), but the implied usage is straightforward given the sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.