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. While 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to address idempotency, error handling (e.g., invalid protocol codes), or what 'details' encompasses.

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 single-sentence description is efficiently structured and front-loaded. However, its extreme brevity leaves critical gaps—particularly regarding the opaque protocol codes—preventing a perfect score.

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 (single enum parameter), the description meets minimum viability but remains incomplete. It omits the meaning of protocol identifiers and provides no indication of the return value structure despite the lack of output schema.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It maps the 'protocol' parameter to the concept of 'agent payment protocol,' adding necessary semantic context. However, it fails to explain the five enum values (ap2, acp, x402, mpp, ucp) or their meanings.

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 retrieves details using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'agent payment protocol.' The word 'specific' subtly distinguishes it from the sibling 'compare_protocols,' though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 'compare_protocols' or 'scan_opportunities.' It lacks prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or workflow context.

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