pythia-oracle-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. It clarifies that this tool is for 'planning' with cost calculation rather than executing a subscription (which is important given the misleading 'subscribe_' prefix), but it lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, or what the output schema contains.

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 efficiently structured with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clean Args section. Every sentence earns its place—there is no redundant or filler text, and the parameter documentation is concise yet complete.

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 simple parameter structure (3 flat parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on parameter semantics. However, with no annotations and a name suggesting potential mutation ('subscribe'), it could benefit from explicit behavioral safety clarification to be fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (only titles provided), the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: feed_name includes specific format examples, condition maps integer values to semantic meanings (ABOVE, BELOW, etc.), and days specifies the valid range (1-365). This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states the tool 'Plan[s] a specific Pythia Events subscription with cost and exact calls,' providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_events_info (general info) and get_pricing (general pricing) by specifying subscription planning with exact call calculations, though 'Plan' is slightly ambiguous regarding whether this is an estimation or execution step.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pricing or get_events_info, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions. While the mention of 'cost and exact calls' gives implicit context, there are no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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