Evaluates independent held-out real experiments against a training-mean no-persona baseline to test whether simulated-buyer insights generalize beyond training data.
Evaluate independent held-out real experiments against a training-mean no-persona baseline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| out | No | ||
| pairs | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, whether it has side effects, or what the response contains.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the evaluation target and baseline.
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?
For a tool with two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the one-sentence description is too sparse. It leaves the input format, output behavior, and operational context undocumented.
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 0%, and the description never mentions the required 'pairs' parameter or the optional 'out' parameter. Neither parameter's meaning, format, or expected structure is explained anywhere.
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 ('Evaluate') and resource ('independent held-out real experiments') plus a comparison baseline. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'backtest' tool.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'backtest' or 'run_test'. The phrase 'held-out' implies a usage context, but no when/when-not conditions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.