barevalue-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and mentions checking balance, which suggests non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds some context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage guidelines without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and follows with practical application advice.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete for its purpose. It covers what information is retrieved and when to use it, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like response format or error cases. The absence of an output schema means some gaps remain in understanding the return values.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is appropriate as there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('Barevalue account information'), listing detailed components like credit balance, AI subscription status, bonus minutes, and pricing. It effectively distinguishes this read-only informational tool from siblings that handle actions like submitting orders or managing webhooks.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by stating 'Use this to check available balance before submitting orders,' which directs when to use this tool (for pre-order checks) and implies alternatives like order submission tools (e.g., barevalue_submit) for different actions. This offers clear context and exclusions.

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