alderpost-mcp

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 mentions the cost and data sources, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, latency, error handling, or what the output format looks like (beyond scores 0-100). For a paid tool with potential side effects, this 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.

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

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: one outlining the intelligence scope and data sources, and another stating the price. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though the price mention could be integrated more smoothly.

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 (paid tool with multiple data sources) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, how scores are interpreted, error conditions, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'domain' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify if subdomains are allowed or format constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool provides 'company intelligence' across specific categories (tech stack, infrastructure, social presence, business signals) and mentions 8 data sources with scores. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compliance_check' or 'threat_pulse' by focusing on general business intelligence rather than specialized domains. However, it doesn't specify the exact verb (e.g., 'analyze' or 'retrieve') which prevents a perfect score.

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 'property_intel' or 'prospect_iq'. It mentions the price ($0.50 USDC on Base), which hints at cost considerations, but doesn't explain the trade-offs, prerequisites, or specific use cases that would help an agent choose between sibling tools.

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