Pulse MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'payment intents (attempted payments)', hinting at a read-only list of pending transactions, but fails to disclose critical details like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, return format, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, side effects), output structure, and usage nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to rely on.

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 description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single 'linkId' parameter. The baseline is 3 since the schema fully documents the parameter, and the description does not compensate with additional context like format examples or usage notes.

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 ('List') and resource ('payment intents'), specifying they are 'attempted payments' for a 'specific payment link'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_received_payments' by focusing on intents rather than completed payments, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_payment_links'.

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 context by specifying 'for a specific payment link', suggesting it should be used when querying intents linked to a particular link. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'list_received_payments' or 'get_payment_link', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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