djd-agent-score-mcp

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

While annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, the description adds crucial behavioral context: the specific cost ($0.02 USD) and the return structure ({ success, reportId, message }). It does not disclose what happens after submission (e.g., review process, immediate blacklist status).

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 perfectly structured with clear sections: purpose statement, payment warning, Args list, and Returns documentation. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose; there is no redundant or filler text despite covering multiple aspects (function, cost, inputs, outputs).

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 this is a paid mutation endpoint with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential ground: input requirements, payment obligation, and return value structure. It could be improved by explaining report lifecycle (e.g., 'creates a pending report for review') but is sufficient for invocation.

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 100% schema description coverage, the structured schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (patterns, examples, constraints). The description's Args section repeats this information with nearly identical semantics ('suspected fraudster' adds slight intent context), meeting the baseline expectation when the schema carries the descriptive burden.

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 specific action (Submit), target resource (fraud report), and required inputs (wallet, transaction hashes, evidence). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_blacklist (which queries existing data) by being the only submission/mutation tool for fraud.

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 critical usage context by explicitly stating this is a 'PAID endpoint — requires x402 payment ($0.02 USD)', which is essential for an agent to prepare payment headers. However, it does not specify when to use this versus check_blacklist or whether to verify the wallet status before reporting.

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