API-Market 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 states it's a POST request but doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the API returns (e.g., detection scores or categories). This is a significant gap for an API tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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, direct sentence with zero waste—it efficiently states the action and endpoint. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (an API call for NSFW detection), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, potential side effects, or usage constraints, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to invoke it correctly.

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%, with the single parameter 'image' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as image format constraints or size limits. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter semantics 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 states the action ('Make a POST request') and target resource ('bridgeml/nsfw!detection/nsfw_detection'), clearly indicating it performs NSFW detection via an API call. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous. No tautology or misleading elements are present.

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. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference any of the sibling tools (e.g., other image-related tools like 'ImageFaceSwap' or 'Get_Unblurred_Image_URL'). Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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