alderpost-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a paid service ($0.85 USDC on Base), performs 8 specific security checks, and outputs letter grades. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the domain is invalid.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second adds pricing details. However, the list of checks could be slightly more structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and cost, but lacks details on output format (beyond 'letter graded'), error handling, or integration context. For a paid auditing tool with 8 checks, more completeness would be helpful.

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 the single 'domain' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the 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 clearly states the tool performs an IT security compliance audit with 8 specific checks (email auth, SSL/TLS, OWASP headers, cookies, privacy, DNSSEC) and provides letter grades. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'threat_pulse' or 'domain_shield' by focusing on comprehensive compliance auditing rather than threat detection or domain protection.

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 implies usage for security compliance auditing of domains, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'domain_shield' or 'threat_pulse'. It mentions the price ($0.85 USDC on Base), which suggests a paid service context, but lacks clear guidance 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.