intelligence-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to state whether this is a read-only operation, what 'key dimensions' are evaluated, or what format the comparison output takes. 'Across key dimensions' implies a structured analysis but lacks specifics on behavior or side effects.

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 a single efficient sentence with no redundant words. However, given the absence of parameters, annotations, and output schema, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification of behavioral traits and return values.

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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description successfully identifies the operation but fails to compensate for missing structured metadata. It omits critical context such as comparison dimensions, output format, and selection criteria for which protocols are compared.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation in this case, though it could have clarified whether the protocols to compare are specified elsewhere or if it compares all available protocols.

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 identifies the core action ('Compare') and resource ('agent payment protocols'), providing a specific verb-object pair. However, while 'across key dimensions' hints at the comparison methodology, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like get_protocol_info.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the available alternatives (get_protocol_info, scan_opportunities). There are no explicit when/when-not conditions or references to prerequisites for the comparison operation.

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