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. While it mentions 'optimal route' and optional waypoints, it doesn't describe what 'optimal' means (fastest, shortest, etc.), performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a routing tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the grammar could be slightly improved ('a origin' should be 'an origin'), and it could benefit from more structure for clarity.

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 (routing with multiple parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'optimal' route, how waypoints affect routing, what the output format is, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with 7 parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions origin, destination, and waypoints but doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides about these parameters. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Finding optimal route from a origin to a destination, passing through multiple waypoints(optional).' It specifies the verb ('finding optimal route'), resources (origin, destination, waypoints), and scope (optimal routing). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'best_route_for_multiple_stops', which appears similar.

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 tool 'best_route_for_multiple_stops' or other routing-related tools like 'distance_and_duration_bw_starts_and_stops'. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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