curistat-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns (a composite score) but does not cover other behavioral aspects such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it has side effects, performance characteristics, or error conditions. The description is informative but incomplete for behavioral 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, the nature of the output (0-100 score across 5 bands), and the underlying indicators. There is no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 complexity (involving multiple indicators like HMM and VPIN) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description does a decent job by explaining the output format and components. However, it could be more complete by detailing the interpretation of the score or potential use cases, especially since siblings include related tools like get_direction and get_signals.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output and purpose without redundant parameter information, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CRC reading'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns a '0-100 score across 5 bands' based on specific indicators (HMM, VPIN, etc.). This is not a tautology and provides unique details not implied by the tool name alone.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_direction, get_signals, or get_forecast_today, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only describes what the tool does, not when it should be selected over other tools in the server.

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