Detect model API abuse by analyzing telemetry for burst, cost-drain, repeated-query, and auth-failure signals without inspecting prompt content.
Analyze customer-controlled model API telemetry for burst, cost-drain, repeated-query, and auth-failure signals. Never supply prompt bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| events | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It warns against supplying prompt bodies, which is useful, but it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what data it accesses beyond the events input.
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 concise and front-loaded, giving the primary action and target in the first sentence. The second sentence adds an important security boundary without unnecessary detail or redundancy.
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, no annotations, and an underspecified events parameter, the description does not fully convey what the tool returns or how the analysis results are presented. It covers the high-level purpose but leaves critical operational details missing.
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 sole parameter 'events' is an array of objects with no schema or field descriptions. The description indicates that the input is telemetry and focuses on signal types, but it does not explain the expected structure, required fields, or constraints of each event object, leaving significant ambiguity.
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: analyzing customer-controlled model API telemetry for specific abuse signals. It names concrete signal types (burst, cost-drain, repeated-query, auth-failure) and adds a security constraint, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling security tools.
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 the sibling tools. The description implies it is for telemetry analysis, but it does not specify conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.