verified__register_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency, URL constraints, and the fee_miner parameter's purpose. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, side effects, and details about the registration process. More transparency is needed for a mutation 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 concise, containing essential information in a single paragraph without redundancy. It could benefit from a clearer structure, but it is not overly verbose.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details beyond fee_minor, does not describe the return value format, and omits prerequisites or error conditions. An agent would likely need additional information for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only describes fee_minor and hints at URL constraints. Parameters like provider, description, and payment_ref are not explained, leaving gaps. This is insufficient for an agent to fill all parameters correctly.

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 tool registers a third-party MCP server under Viridis Verified, specifies constraints (https, public FQDN only), mentions the return of a content-addressed service_id, and notes idempotency on (url, provider). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like verified__call_verified or verified__list_services.

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 usage for registering a server, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus not use alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. Given the many sibling tools, additional context would help an agent choose correctly.

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