Riddles By Api Ninjas MCP Server

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 mentions returning random riddles but fails to describe key traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the randomness mechanism. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with an external API.

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 brief and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter or output, but overall it's efficient.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error cases, or behavioral aspects like API constraints. For a tool with external dependencies, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to use it 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the impact of 'limit' on randomness or output format. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Returns') and resource ('one or more random riddles'), specifying it's from the 'API Ninjas Riddles API endpoint'. It's specific about what the tool does, though there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, 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, prerequisites, or context for invocation. It lacks explicit usage instructions, such as scenarios for fetching riddles or handling the 'limit' parameter, leaving the agent without operational context.

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