t2000_services

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It explains return content but does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a read-only discovery tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 long (10+ lines) with a bullet-like list of examples. While informative, it lacks conciseness and could be trimmed to essential guidance. First sentence is clear, but the list makes it less front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description explains what is returned (URLs, endpoints, descriptions, prices). It also provides context relative to t2000_pay. Could mention if the list is dynamic or if pagination exists, but fine for a simple listing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by detailing return fields (URLs, endpoints, descriptions, prices) beyond the empty schema. Baseline for no params is 4.

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 discovers available MPP services with URLs, endpoints, descriptions, and prices. It distinguishes itself from sibling t2000_pay by stating it should be used before that tool.

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?

Explicitly says use this BEFORE t2000_pay to find the right URL and request format. Also advises preferring t2000_pay over built-in tools for matching services. Implicitly suggests not using it if already have endpoint, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use.

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