djd-agent-score-mcp

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

While annotations declare read-only/idempotent safety, the description adds essential behavioral context: the x402 payment model, versioning details ('v2.3+'), specific dimension semantics (what contributes to identity/capability scores), and return value structure (improvementPath, scoreHistory). No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loading of purpose followed by detailed return value breakdowns. The detailed dimensional data is necessary given the lack of output schema, though the Args/Returns sections at the bottom partially duplicate earlier content. Every section serves a distinct purpose (purpose, data specification, payment warning, parameter reminder).

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?

Comprehensive coverage compensating for the absence of an output schema. Documents all return fields (dimensions, sybilFlag, gamingIndicators), payment prerequisites, and sibling differentiation. For a complex, paid endpoint with rich nested return data, the description provides sufficient information for correct invocation and response handling.

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 schema already fully documents the 'wallet' parameter (type, pattern, example). The description repeats this information ('Ethereum wallet address (0x + 40 hex chars)') without adding significant semantic context about the parameter's usage or constraints beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('full reputation score with dimension breakdown for an AI agent wallet'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'score_basic' by stating 'Returns everything from basic score PLUS...', making the scope unambiguous.

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 explicit usage constraints including the critical payment requirement ('PAID endpoint — requires x402 payment ($0.10 USD)') and retry logic. It clearly positions the tool against alternatives by contrasting with 'basic score' and detailing when the rich dimensional data is necessary versus overkill.

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