parserail_compareCompare two versions of a contract or document to identify every material change, its meaning, and associated risk.
Two versions of a contract or document → every material change, what it means, and the risk it carries. Costs credits from the account wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | The earlier version (file, fileUrl, or text). | |
| b | Yes | The later version (file, fileUrl, or text). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it costs credits from the account wallet, a behavioral trait not present in annotations (annotations only state readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, etc.). This adds valuable transparency about side effects. It does not contradict annotations; the cost is consistent with readOnlyHint false implying 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 two sentences: the first states the core function and outcome, the second states the cost. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no superfluous words. Perfectly concise and easy to parse.
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 there is no output schema, the description gives a hint of the output ('every material change, what it means, and the risk it carries') and covers the cost. It does not explain return format or detailed behavior, but for a comparison tool whose inputs are well-specified in the schema, it is sufficiently complete. The cost warning is an important addition.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each property (a and b) described as earlier/later version. The tool description adds the phrase 'two versions' which is already implicit in the schema. It does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states the tool compares two versions of a contract/document and identifies material changes with meaning and risk. This is a specific verb+resource (compare versions) and clearly distinguishes from all siblings, none of which mention comparison.
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 purpose implies it should be used when two versions of a document need comparison, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or direct references to sibling tools. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.