Underground Cultural District MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about different return types for free items (delivery URL) and paid items (Stripe checkout link), which goes beyond the basic purpose. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the product ID is invalid, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of three sentences that each serve a clear purpose: stating the tool's function, explaining the return behavior for different product types, and providing usage guidance. There is no wasted language, and information is front-loaded effectively.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, usage, and behavioral outcomes (URL types). However, it lacks details on error cases or response formats, which could be important for an AI agent. Since there's no output schema, some additional context on return values would be beneficial but isn't critical here.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'product_id' documented as 'Product ID or name (partial match supported).' The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the purchase or delivery link for a product.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('purchase or delivery link'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search-underground' beyond mentioning it as a prerequisite, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides clear usage guidance by stating 'Use search-underground first to find product IDs,' which implies a workflow and distinguishes it from the sibling tool. It also hints at when to use it based on product type (free vs. paid items). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or list all alternatives, which keeps it from a score of 5.

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