intelligence-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'scan' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to clarify what constitutes an 'opportunity,' the volume of results expected, performance characteristics, or whether results are real-time or cached.

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 redundancy or filler. However, it is under-specified for a tool with undocumented parameters and no annotations.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits expected return structure, parameter semantics, and behavioral constraints necessary for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the two parameters (days, min_score). It completely fails to do so, leaving critical semantic gaps: 'days' likely refers to a lookback window but is undefined, and 'min_score' references an unexplained scoring system.

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 verb 'Scan' is specific and the domain 'agent payments ecosystem' provides context, but 'actionable opportunities' is vague marketing language that fails to specify the concrete resource type or entity being returned. It minimally distinguishes from siblings (compare_protocols, get_protocol_info) by implying a discovery operation rather than retrieval or comparison.

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 sibling tools compare_protocols or get_protocol_info. There are no stated prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria.

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