EVE Online Companion MCP Server

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 what the tool shows (full chain, planet types, estimates) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or how it handles errors. The description adds some context but leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output scope. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, making it 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 complexity of planning a production chain, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers what the tool does but omits details on authentication needs, error handling, or output format, which are important for a tool with potential dependencies on character data and game mechanics.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (product_name, num_planets, as_character). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Plan a PI production chain') and resource ('for a target product'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like eve_pi_colonies or eve_pi_products. It specifies the output scope: 'full chain from P0 raw materials to the target tier, which planet types are needed, and factory/extractor estimates.'

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eve_pi_products (which might list products) or eve_pi_colonies (which might show existing colonies). The description implies usage for planning production chains but 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.