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 full burden. It mentions getting a URL from another tool for a 'request id received from this API', implying this tool returns a request ID rather than direct output. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read/write operation, latency expectations, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the API actually does with the coding parameters.

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 (two sentences) but poorly structured. The first sentence 'Coding Assistant.' is redundant with the tool name. The second sentence provides some workflow guidance but is awkwardly phrased. While concise, it doesn't effectively front-load essential information about the tool's purpose.

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 complex tool with 9 required parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use the parameters, what behavior to expect, or what format the response will be in. The mention of needing another tool for output adds confusion rather than clarity.

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?

With 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'frequency_penalty', 'max_tokens', 'temperature', etc. mean or how they affect the coding assistance. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Coding Assistant' (tautology with the tool name) and mentions calling another tool to get a URL, but doesn't specify what this tool actually does. It doesn't describe the core function (generating code or processing coding requests) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'Get_coder_output_URL'.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning to call 'get coder output URL' after using this API, but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, what kind of coding tasks it handles, or any prerequisites. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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