djd-agent-score-mcp

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent). Description adds critical billing context ('FREE endpoint') and detailed return payload structure (score ranges, tiers, freshness) that annotations don't provide. Does not mention rate limits or caching behavior.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, billing, args, returns, examples). Front-loaded with primary action. Minor redundancy between opening paragraph and Returns section listing fields, but acceptable for clarity.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, description comprehensively covers input validation, output structure (compensating for missing output schema), billing implications, and usage examples. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% with regex pattern and description. The Args section repeats schema information ('Ethereum wallet address (0x + 40 hex chars)') without adding semantic nuances like 'must be a deployed agent contract' or validation beyond the pattern.

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?

Opens with specific verb 'Get' + resource 'basic reputation score' + target 'AI agent wallet on Base'. The modifier 'basic' effectively distinguishes it from sibling 'score_full' and 'score_refresh'.

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?

Provides concrete natural language examples mapping queries to tool use. Explicitly notes 'FREE endpoint — no x402 payment required,' implying cost-based selection criteria. Lacks explicit comparison to 'score_full' for when to prefer one over the other.

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