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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'current' means (e.g., cached vs real-time data). For a financial tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

For a simple read tool with one well-documented parameter but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about authentication, data freshness, and relationship to sibling wallet tools, making it incomplete for optimal agent usage.

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 has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Get current wallet balance' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('wallet balance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'eve_wallet_journal', but it's unambiguous about what it does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'eve_wallet_journal' or other wallet-related tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication status) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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