API-Market MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the HTTP method and endpoint, missing critical details like what the POST request does (e.g., retrieves results, triggers processing), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 no wasted words, making it highly concise. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it lacks necessary details but isn't verbose.

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 complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., faceswap operations), no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in a workflow, what it returns, or how it interacts with other tools, leaving the agent unable to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'request_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what a request_id is, how to obtain it, or its format (e.g., from a previous faceswap request). The description fails to compensate for the 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 'Make a POST request to capix/faceswap/result/' restates the tool name 'Result' in action form but lacks specificity about what the tool actually does. It mentions the endpoint but doesn't explain the purpose (e.g., retrieving faceswap results, checking status, or fetching output). This is a tautology that adds little beyond the name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'ImageFaceSwap' and 'VideoFaceSwap', it's unclear if this tool is for checking results of those operations or something else. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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