eduframe-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It does not clarify pagination behavior (despite cursor/per_page parameters), cache policies, rate limits, or whether 'all' means global scope or user-scoped data. The 'Get' implies read-only but safety is not explicit.

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?

Single sentence of 9 words with no redundancy. Efficiently structured, though arguably too minimal given the lack of annotations and potential for confusion with sibling tools.

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?

Inadequate given the context: no output schema, no annotations, and confusingly similar sibling `get_payment_options`. The description should explain what distinguishes a 'payment method' from a 'payment option' and what fields the records contain.

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%, documenting cursor and per_page sufficiently. The description adds no parameter-specific context, but baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full load.

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 verb (Get) and resource (payment method records) with scope (available for customers). However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool `get_payment_options`, which could cause selection ambiguity since these terms are often synonymous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like `get_payment` (likely for transactions) or `get_payment_options`. No mention of prerequisites or specific use cases where this is preferred.

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