Search for refutations, counter-evidence, or satisfied-user examples that weaken a claim or need, so you can stress-test market assumptions and reduce bias.
Search for potential refutations, counter-evidence, or satisfied users that weaken a claim or need.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| claim_or_need_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states whether this is a read-only search, how results are ranked or capped, whether results persist, or any rate/pagination behavior. For a search tool in a dense toolset, this is a notable 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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its operational meaning come first. It is efficient, though slightly terse for the amount of ambiguity left unresolved.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with zero parameter documentation and no annotations, the definition leaves core mechanics (run scoping, id semantics, read-only nature) unspecified. It is under-specified for a tool with two required identifiers.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. The wording 'claim or need' loosely hints at claim_or_need_id, but run_id is entirely unexplained and neither parameter's expected format or scoping (per-run vs global) is clarified.
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 clear verb+resource (search for counterevidence) and adds a useful gloss defining counterevidence as refutations, counter-evidence, or satisfied users that weaken a claim/need. It doesn't distinguish itself from closely related siblings like get_counterevidence_candidates or verify_claims, so it stops short of 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 phrase 'weaken a claim or need' implies the situation, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_counterevidence_candidates or compare_evidence. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.