Compare multiple conflicting claims and expose evidence-based discrepancies. Submit claim statements to identify contradictions and verify against sourced provenance for unbiased analysis.
Compare multiple potentially conflicting claims and expose discrepancies without arbitrary bias.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claims | Yes | List of claim statements to compare |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core action (comparing claims and exposing discrepancies) and a methodological stance ('without arbitrary bias'), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the exact output format is, or how discrepancies are determined. Some behavioral context is present, but significant gaps remain.
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 sentence that opens with the key verb 'Compare' and concisely states the action and intended outcome. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
The tool's interface is simple (one required array parameter), and the description covers its main function. However, since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the structure of the returned 'discrepancies' (e.g., list, report, boolean). It also omits edge-case behavior such as handling empty claims lists or claims with no conflicts. The description is adequate but leaves room for interpretation.
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 already describes the sole required parameter `claims` as 'List of claim statements to compare', giving 100% coverage. The description adds the nuance that the claims should be 'potentially conflicting', but it does not add any format, constraint, or usage details beyond what the schema provides. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Compare'), a clear resource ('multiple potentially conflicting claims'), and a concrete outcome ('expose discrepancies'). It naturally distinguishes compare_claims from sibling tools like verify_claim (single-claim verification) and trace_claim (source tracing) by focusing on cross-claim comparison. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 the tool should be used when multiple potentially conflicting claims need to be compared, providing an implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as verify_claim or audit_entity_consistency, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisite conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.