Submit multiple decision tasks in one request, combining boolean, choice, and score evaluations for concurrent processing with minimal latency.
Submit multiple decision tasks in a single request (combining noul, choice, and score). Evaluates concurrently with ultra-low latency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | Yes | The context or state to analyze. | |
| questions | Yes | Questions map matching OpenRouter Jev decision schema. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully adds that evaluation is concurrent and ultra-low-latency, but it does not explain failure semantics, batch size limits, or whether partial failures are possible. These are meaningful gaps for a batch operation.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action comes first, and the parenthetical carries important differentiation without bloating the description.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. An agent knows the two required inputs and the batch intent, but it does not clarify the question-object shape, error behavior, or any batch constraints. An agent would likely need to consult sibling tools or external schema documentation.
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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds some meaning by indicating questions can combine noul, choice, and score, but it does not explain the nested question object structure beyond what the schema already says.
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?
Begins with a precise verb and resource, 'Submit multiple decision tasks in a single request', and explicitly names the three combined decision types: noul, choice, and score. This clearly distinguishes it from the individual sibling tools.
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 'single request' framing and 'combining noul, choice, and score' clearly signal a batch use case, reinforced by the sibling tool names. It does not explicitly state when to call the individual siblings instead, but the intended context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.