API-Market MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or what happens with ambiguous addresses. For a geocoding service with 9 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's function without parsing unnecessary information.

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 geocoding tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the coordinates will be in (lat/long pairs, GeoJSON, etc.), how precise they are, what happens with partial matches, or any quality indicators. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output.

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 mentions 'address' but doesn't explain the relationship between the 9 parameters or their collective purpose. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter individually. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Obtain location(geographic coordinates) for address.' It specifies the verb ('obtain'), resource ('location'), and output type ('geographic coordinates'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'Reverse_Geocoding', which would have earned a 5.

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 the sibling 'Reverse_Geocoding' tool (which converts coordinates to addresses) or any other geocoding alternatives. There's no context about when this forward geocoding approach is appropriate versus other methods.

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