Compare latency of two URLs by providing URL A and URL B, returning which responds faster. Use this to benchmark endpoint performance.
Compare latency of two URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| left | Yes | URL A | |
| right | Yes | URL B |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does not state that the tool likely performs live network requests to the provided URLs, how many requests are made, whether there are timeouts, or what side effects may occur. This is a meaningful gap.
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 short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It immediately communicates the core operation and both key inputs.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description does not explain what result the comparison returns, what units latency is measured in, or whether the output is a difference, ratio, or report. For a tool that performs a comparison, this missing return-facing detail leaves the agent guessing.
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 100%, and both parameters have basic descriptions ('URL A', 'URL B'). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, but because coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Compare latency of two URLs' names a specific verb and resource: it compares network latency between two endpoints. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like apilatency_status and apilatency_probe, which suggest different operations.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not mention apilatency_status or apilatency_probe, nor any conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.