Katzilla MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the agent knows it's a safe, cacheable query. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'updates monthly' (frequency), 'Returns the Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }' (output structure), and details on quality scoring and citation components (source URL, license, SHA-256 hash). This enriches behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by source, update frequency, and output details in a compact two-sentence format. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, and the second explains the return structure and audit features, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update cadence, and output semantics, providing sufficient context for an agent to use it effectively.

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 100% for the single optional 'date' parameter, documented as 'Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional).' The description doesn't add further parameter details beyond implying date-based queries ('daily exchange rates'), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles documentation adequately.

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: 'Get daily exchange rates from the Czech National Bank.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('daily exchange rates'), and source ('Czech National Bank'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'economic__exchange-rates' or 'economic__ecb-rates' by identifying the specific central bank source.

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 description provides clear context for usage: 'updates monthly' and 'daily exchange rates,' indicating it's for historical or recent data rather than real-time updates. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the source specificity implies it's for Czech koruna rates from CNB.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.