lazymac-k-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions the API returns English JSON, which is useful context, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, error behavior, data freshness, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a public API tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with a single sentence that packs substantial information: domain (Korean public data), scope (exchange rates, holidays, indicators), and output format (English JSON). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates key aspects without unnecessary verbiage.

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 complexity of a general-purpose public data API with multiple data types, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how to query different data types through the params object, what the response structure looks like, error handling, or limitations. For a tool that appears to be a gateway to multiple data endpoints, more guidance is needed.

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 100% with a single 'params' parameter described as 'Free-form params object.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides - no examples of what params might contain, no guidance on required vs optional parameters, or how to structure queries for different data types. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does document the parameter.

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 accesses Korean public data APIs and lists specific data types (exchange rates, holidays, indicators) with output format (English JSON). It distinguishes from some siblings like k_address_geocoder or k_company_lookup by specifying public data scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from k_exchange_rate which appears to be a more specialized sibling.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this general public data tool should be used instead of specialized siblings like k_exchange_rate or k_market_intel, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases.

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