FinaShopping MCP Server

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. It states it 'gets' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'complete details' includes (e.g., fields returned). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic purpose.

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 in a single, efficient sentence, followed by a Spanish translation that doesn't add informational value but may aid multilingual users. It avoids redundancy, but the translation slightly reduces conciseness without enhancing clarity for the primary English context, keeping it from 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 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain what 'complete details' returns or any behavioral traits. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for a read operation, though the simplicity mitigates severity.

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%, with the parameter 'cardId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what a card ID is, how to obtain it, or valid ranges. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though no extra value is added.

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 verb ('Get complete details') and resource ('for a specific credit card'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like search-credit-cards (which lists/filters) by focusing on retrieving full details for a single card. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get-benefits or other siblings that might also retrieve card-related information, preventing a perfect score.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a card ID), exclusions (e.g., not for searching multiple cards), or direct comparisons to siblings like search-credit-cards. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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