Compare Brazilian card machine brands by MDR and monthly costs for a business profile and optional receivables anticipation, returning a cost ranking.
Compara todas as marcas de maquininha para um perfil de negócio e retorna o ranking de custo
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | Yes | Perfil de negócio (mei, pequeno, medio, grande) | |
| antecipation | No | Usa antecipação de recebível? |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output nature ('retorna o ranking de custo'), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, determinism, or rate limits for what is presumably a read-only computation.
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 sentence that front-loads the action, the scope of comparison, and the return value with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a two-parameter comparison tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it takes conceptually (business profile), and what it returns (cost ranking). Only minor gaps remain, such as what dimensions the ranking is based on and whether results are ordered ascending by cost.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (tier enum, antecipation boolean) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the loose phrase 'perfil de negócio', which maps to the tier parameter without adding syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb ('Compara'), a scope ('todas as marcas de maquininha') and a business-profile input, plus the output nature ('ranking de custo'). It is clearly distinct from calculate_cost (single-brand cost) by the word 'todas', though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: comparing 'all brands' for a profile signals a multi-brand comparison scenario, which implicitly contrasts with calculate_cost's single computation. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so it stays at implied guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.