Check Gambit MCP contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool's limited scope ('validates only the MCP adapter contract') and enumerates what it does not do, providing honest expectations about its non-behavior and lack of side effects.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then usage context, then explicit non-scope. Each sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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, one fully-constrained parameter, an output schema, and no siblings, the description covers all necessary context: what it checks, when to use it, and what it does not do. Nothing important is missing.

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 description does not mention the contract_version parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, the parameter is trivial: a single required string with const 'v1', fully specified by the schema. The description adds no semantic value, but none is genuinely needed here.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('compatibility with the walking-skeleton contract'), and clarifies that it validates only the MCP adapter contract. This is precise enough to distinguish it from any data/backtesting/risk tools, even though no siblings are listed.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use it: 'Use this before relying on this pre-production server.' It also lists exclusions—does not validate data, run Gambit, backtest, calculate risk, or provide investment advice—which prevents misuse despite having no sibling tools to compare against.

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