Execute a fraud case by ID (01-15) to trigger order generation and retrieve up to 50 evidence rows for investigation.
Run one fraud case (ids 01-15). Returns at most 50 evidence rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal a key behavioral trait: the tool returns at most 50 evidence rows, which is useful for setting agent expectations. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether running a case performs writes or triggers external actions), which is a gap for a mutation-like tool.
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 extremely concise—two short sentences, no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds the crucial output limit. Every word earns its place.
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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly sufficient but falls short in parameter guidance and side-effect disclosure. The 50-row limit is good context, but the lack of case_id explanation and any indication of write behavior leaves minor gaps.
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?
The input schema only has a case_id string with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what case_id should be (e.g., the format, the allowed range 01-15, or how to obtain valid IDs). Since the schema provides no help, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent guessing.
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 states a specific verb ('run') and resource ('fraud case'), and clarifies that it handles one case at a time (ids 01-15). This is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_fraud_cases, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 implies when to use it: when you need to execute a specific fraud case. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_fraud_cases for listing, or run_fraud_agent_cases for running multiple cases. The single-case scope is a mild hint but not a full routing guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.