Lists available Bacon Services from the live catalog, showing each service's USDC price, network, limits, and whether this package can run it. Use it to discover services before buying.
Lists what Bacon Services sells to agents right now, from its live catalog: each service's price in USDC, network, output, input limits, and whether this installed package can run it (and as which tool). Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: the listing is free, live/current, and reports per-installed-package runnability. It stops short of stating read-only nature or any freshness/pagination caveats, but for a zero-param listing the safety profile is unambiguous and the cost disclosure adds real value.
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?
A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with every clause (price, network, output, limits, runnability, free) carrying distinct information. No filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (price in USDC, network, output, input limits, tool mapping) and the cost. For a simple discovery tool with no inputs, this is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret 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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema describes none, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies per the no-parameter rule.
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?
States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (Bacon Services catalog) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: USDC price, network, output, input limits, and runnability. The mention of 'as which tool' implicitly ties entries back to the sibling tools, so an agent can distinguish it from quote or the task-specific siblings.
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 catalog-discovery intent is implied ('Lists what Bacon Services sells... right now'), and 'Free' hints at a cost-free probe, but there is no explicit 'use this before X' or named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for discovering available services.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.