Returns the fleet-standard capabilities, version, and pricing for clean-energy tax-credit scenarios including 45Q, 45V, 45Y, 48E, and 45X.
[taxcredit-engine — clean-energy tax-credit scenarios (45Q/45V/45Y/48E/45X)] Return fleet-standard capabilities, version, and pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[]Input schema / titleAdded value: +"describe_agentArguments"v0.1.9Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[]Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"describe_agentArguments"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[]Input schema / titleAdded value: +"describe_agentArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is returned (capabilities, version, pricing) without mentioning any behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or authentication requirements. The description does not address whether the tool is read-only or has other behavioral characteristics.
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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. The bracketed prefix provides context without unnecessary verbosity. 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 absence of parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description is minimal. For a simple 'describe' tool, it provides the essential information about what is returned but lacks completeness regarding the nature of the output (e.g., format), potential variations, or any error conditions. It is adequate but could be improved with more detail.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% because there are no parameters to describe. Per the scoring rules, the baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics.
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 'Return' and the resource 'fleet-standard capabilities, version, and pricing', and the bracketed prefix specifies the taxcredit-engine domain. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other describe_agent tools beyond the prefix.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of similar describe_agent tools from other namespaces (e.g., neurogenesis, notary, offsets). The description lacks context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.