Fetch a registry tool's full score breakdown, component history, and recent health checks by tool ID to evaluate its current status and reliability.
[Wicked Registry] One tool's full score breakdown, component history and recent real health checks. x402 or REGISTRY_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_id | Yes | Registry id from registry_search_tools / registry_featured_tools. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an auth/payment requirement ('x402 or REGISTRY_API_KEY'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. Beyond that, it doesn't state read-only nature explicitly or error behavior, but the read of 'detail' strongly implies a safe read and the auth note is real added 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?
Two short sentences; the content summary is front-loaded and the auth note trails. Minimal waste, though the output content list is somewhat terse and could clarify the return shape.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally explain what 'score breakdown', 'component history', and 'health checks' return. It names them but doesn't characterize the payload, and doesn't clarify auth failure modes. Adequate but with gaps given the missing structured fields.
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% and the single parameter (tool_id) is fully documented in the schema, including its source. Baseline for full coverage is 3; the description's mention that it draws ids from registry_search_tools reinforces the workflow, giving a slight lift.
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 resource (one tool's detail: score breakdown, component history, health checks) with a clear retrieval verb implied. It's distinguishable from registry_search_tools and registry_tool_badge by naming the exact content returned, though it doesn't explicitly name those 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 schema description tells the agent where to get the tool_id ('Registry id from registry_search_tools / registry_featured_tools'), which implies a two-step lookup flow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs registry_tool_badge or other registry siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.