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 tool is 'risk scored' which implies some analysis beyond raw data retrieval, but doesn't specify what the scoring entails, how results are formatted, or any limitations (e.g., data freshness, coverage). The pricing information ('Price: $0.30 USDC on Base') suggests a transactional cost but doesn't clarify if this is per call or has other implications.

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 relatively concise but has structural issues. The first sentence packs multiple concepts (FDA sources, risk scoring), while the pricing information feels tacked on rather than integrated. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, but the pricing detail might be better placed elsewhere in tool metadata rather than in the description.

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 health intelligence data and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'risk scored' means in practice, what format results take, or any limitations of the FDA data coverage. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, more guidance on expected results and behavioral characteristics is needed.

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 both parameters (query and type) adequately. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how the 'type' parameter affects results or provide examples beyond the schema's 'drug, food, or auto' enum. The baseline of 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 health intelligence data from FDA sources (drug labels, adverse events, recalls, nutrition) with risk scoring. It specifies the resource domain (FDA-regulated health information) and the action (intelligence gathering with scoring), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compliance_check' or 'threat_pulse' which might also involve risk assessment.

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. While it mentions the data sources (FDA drug labels, adverse events, etc.), it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. There's no comparison to sibling tools like 'compliance_check' that might also handle regulatory data.

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