DUAL MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is significant overlap in some areas, such as multiple 'list' tools for different resources (e.g., dual_list_objects, dual_search_objects, dual_public_search_objects) and similar 'get' operations across entities, which could cause confusion. Descriptions help clarify, but the sheer number of tools increases ambiguity risk.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent 'dual_verb_noun' pattern throughout, with clear action-object pairs (e.g., dual_create_template, dual_update_object). Minor deviations exist, like dual_get_me instead of dual_get_wallet_me, but overall naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 80 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, making it overwhelming and likely to cause agent confusion. While the domain (a multi-feature platform) is broad, this many tools suggests poor scoping and could be split into multiple focused servers for better usability.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the platform's domain, including CRUD operations for templates, objects, organizations, and webhooks, plus authentication, notifications, and public access. No obvious gaps are present; it supports full lifecycle management and complex workflows like batch actions and search.
Average 3.6/5 across 80 of 80 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false), so the bar is lower. The description doesn't contradict these annotations (it describes a listing operation which aligns with readOnly). While it doesn't add much behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, it doesn't need to compensate for missing annotations either.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an agent understand or use the tool. Every sentence should earn its place, and this single sentence doesn't earn its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a list operation with good annotations and schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'support messages' are, what format they return in (no output schema exists), or how this tool fits into the broader context of messaging/support operations. The description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 4 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List support messages' is a tautology that restates the tool name/title without adding any meaningful detail. It doesn't specify what 'support messages' are, what resource they belong to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'dual_list_messages' or 'dual_send_support_message'. The description provides no additional context beyond the obvious from the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how it differs from related sibling tools like 'dual_list_messages' or 'dual_send_support_message'. The agent receives no usage context whatsoever.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide excellent behavioral context (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal value beyond annotations by specifying 'hierarchical object tree' context, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid object IDs. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a hierarchical query tool, it should ideally explain more about the return format (list of child objects? with what properties?), pagination behavior, or error conditions. The annotations cover safety aspects well, but the description doesn't complete the operational picture for an agent trying to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage (the single parameter 'object_id' has description 'Resource ID'), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't clarify what format the object_id should be, what happens if the object has no children, or how the hierarchy is defined. The description mentions 'hierarchical object tree' which provides some context for the parameter, but no specific guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get child objects in a hierarchical object tree' clearly states the action (get) and resource (child objects), but it's somewhat vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_object_parents' or 'dual_get_object'. It specifies 'hierarchical object tree' which provides some context, but lacks specificity about what constitutes a child object in this system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With sibling tools like 'dual_get_object', 'dual_get_object_parents', 'dual_list_objects', and 'dual_search_objects', there's no indication of when this hierarchical children retrieval is preferred over other object querying methods. The description doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Delete' which aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation. While annotations already indicate this is destructive, non-readonly, idempotent, and open-world, the description doesn't add behavioral details beyond confirming the destructive nature. It doesn't mention what 'delete' entails (permanent vs soft delete, cascading effects, etc.), but doesn't contradict annotations either.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient despite being minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (success response, error conditions, idempotency implications from annotations), nor does it mention permissions or side effects. Given the complexity of a delete operation and rich annotations, more context is needed about behavioral expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'template_id' well-documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a message template' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (message template), but it's quite basic and doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools like dual_delete_template or dual_delete_webhook. It specifies the exact resource type (message template) which is helpful, but lacks detail about scope or consequences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing template_id), what happens after deletion, or how this differs from other delete operations like dual_delete_template. The description is purely functional without contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false (write operation), openWorldHint=true (may accept unspecified parameters), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal context beyond this, only listing face types without detailing creation behavior (e.g., response format, error conditions, or side effects). No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description doesn't enrich behavioral understanding significantly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a visual face for a template'), followed by a concise list of types. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though the type list could be integrated more smoothly. The structure is efficient, but the lack of usage context slightly reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false) with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what (create face) and types, but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The annotations help, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the absence of output schema or provide comprehensive context for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (template_id, display_url, type, platform). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond listing the 'type' enum values, which are already in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a visual face for a template') and resource ('face'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_update_face' (update) and 'dual_delete_face' (delete) by specifying creation, but doesn't differentiate from 'dual_create_template' or 'dual_create_template_variation' which create related resources. The list of types adds specificity but doesn't fully address sibling overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing template), constraints, or compare to siblings like 'dual_update_face' or 'dual_get_template_faces'. It lists face types but doesn't explain when to choose one type over another, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it supports 'complex queries across all object properties' and provides a filter example, which gives useful context about query capabilities beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example filter is helpful and relevant. However, the second sentence about 'complex queries across all object properties' could be integrated more smoothly, and there's some redundancy with the schema's parameter descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with rich annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent) and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output format details (no output schema provided), doesn't explain error cases or result structure, and misses sibling differentiation. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (filter, sort, limit) with descriptions. The description provides an example filter format, which adds some practical context beyond the schema's generic description, but doesn't explain sort syntax or limit constraints beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches tokenized objects with filter criteria and supports complex queries across all object properties. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'tokenized objects' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like 'dual_public_search_objects' or list tools like 'dual_list_objects'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dual_list_objects' (which might list without filtering) or 'dual_public_search_objects' (which might be for public access). No context about prerequisites, access levels, or appropriate use cases is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide substantial information: readOnlyHint=false indicates mutation, openWorldHint=true suggests flexible resource handling, idempotentHint=true implies safe retries, and destructiveHint=false indicates non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on duplicate additions (though idempotency hints at safe retry). No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the primary action and includes all essential elements (what, where, with what role). There's zero wasted verbiage or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with good annotation coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation but lacks important context about permissions needed, error responses, success criteria, or what the tool returns. The annotations help but don't fully compensate for the missing behavioral details in the description itself.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain format requirements, valid role IDs, or relationships between parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the documentation burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a wallet as a member'), target resource ('to an organization'), and specifies the role assignment ('with a specific role'). It distinguishes from sibling 'dual_remove_org_member' by being the complementary add operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other organization-related tools like 'dual_create_organization' or 'dual_update_organization'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., organization must exist, wallet must be valid), doesn't specify when to use batch operations instead, and doesn't reference related tools like 'dual_create_org_role' for role creation or 'dual_list_org_members' for verification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the basic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the agent knows this is a non-destructive creation operation with open-world semantics and no idempotence. The description adds that placeholders are supported in subject/body, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate names.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. Every element (create action, template type, key components) earns its place, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with good annotations (covering safety) and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what's being created. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., template ID, confirmation), and it lacks usage context that would help an agent decide when to invoke it versus alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions placeholders for subject/body and delivery channels, which aligns with but doesn't significantly expand upon the schema documentation. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('notification template') along with the key components (subject, body with placeholders, delivery channels). It distinguishes this from other template-related tools like 'dual_create_template' by specifying it's for message/notification templates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'dual_send_notification' which might be a closer sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_create_template' or 'dual_send_notification'. The description lists what it creates but doesn't provide context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or when this specific template creation is appropriate versus other notification methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (flexible inputs), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds that it creates 'a new role' (implying creation vs update) but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate role names. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, zero wasted words. Every part of the description ('Create a new role with specific permissions for an organization') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage context, error conditions, or response format details. Given the annotations handle safety profile, the description meets minimum viability but leaves gaps in operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Role name', 'List of permission strings'). The description adds minimal context by mentioning 'specific permissions' which aligns with the 'permissions' parameter, but doesn't provide extra semantic details like permission format examples or naming conventions beyond what the schema already documents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new role') and resource ('for an organization'), specifying the key attribute ('with specific permissions'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'dual_create_organization' (creates orgs) and 'dual_list_org_roles' (lists roles), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all mutation tools like 'dual_update_organization'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin rights), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing roles), or refer to related tools like 'dual_list_org_roles' for checking existing roles or 'dual_update_organization' for org-level changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key traits: readOnlyHint=false indicates mutation, openWorldHint=true suggests flexible inputs, idempotentHint=false means repeated calls may create duplicates, and destructiveHint=false implies no deletion. The description adds minimal context by mentioning 'overridden properties,' but doesn't detail behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or rate limits beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters, nested object, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, error cases, or output expectations, which could hinder an agent's ability to invoke it correctly without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions: 'template_id' as Resource ID, 'name' as Variation name, and 'object' as Variation-specific property overrides. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a variation') and resource ('of an existing template'), specifying the operation involves 'overridden properties.' It distinguishes from sibling 'dual_create_template' by focusing on variations rather than new templates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'dual_update_template' or 'dual_list_template_variations.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_update_template' for modifying templates or 'dual_list_template_variations' for viewing existing variations. The description implies usage for creating variations but lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing an existing template, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=true (destructive), idempotentHint=true (idempotent), and openWorldHint=true (open-world). The description adds minimal value beyond confirming deletion, but doesn't elaborate on consequences (e.g., permanent removal, recovery options) or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. Annotations provide critical safety and idempotency context, but the description lacks details on error handling or return values. It's adequate given the tool's simplicity but leaves gaps in behavioral expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'file_id' described as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing guidance. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a file from DUAL storage'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_delete_template' or 'dual_delete_webhook', but the specificity of 'file' provides some distinction. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid file_id), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting other resource types), or related tools like 'dual_get_file' for verification. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds minimal context by specifying 'executed action,' implying retrieval of past actions, but lacks details on response format, error handling, or authentication needs, offering only basic value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core purpose ('Get full details'). It efficiently communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with good annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what 'full details' include (e.g., fields, structure), and it lacks context on error cases or dependencies, leaving gaps in completeness for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'action_id' fully documented as 'Resource ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing guidance. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('full details of a specific executed action'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_list_actions' (which likely lists multiple actions) or 'dual_get_batch' (which might retrieve batch details), missing an opportunity for clearer distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an action_id from a previous operation) or compare it to similar tools like 'dual_list_actions' for browsing actions or 'dual_get_object' for related data, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying that details include 'all contained transactions', which clarifies the scope of returned data. However, it lacks additional context like rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details') and resource. There's no wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations provide safety and behavioral hints, and the schema fully documents the single parameter, the description is adequate for a read-only tool. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the structure of returned batch details or transactions, leaving a gap in understanding the response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'batch_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add further meaning beyond implying it's for a 'sequencer batch', which is already inferred from the tool name. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra param details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('details of a sequencer batch including all contained transactions'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_object' or 'dual_list_batches', which might retrieve similar data but with different scopes or formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a batch ID from 'dual_list_batches', or compare it to siblings like 'dual_get_object' for transaction details. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'details' of a face, but doesn't elaborate on what those details include, error conditions, or authentication needs. With annotations doing most of the work, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse. Every word serves a purpose, achieving maximum efficiency without sacrificing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what 'details' include or how this differs from other get operations, leaving gaps in completeness. With annotations covering safety and behavior, it meets the minimum viable threshold but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'face_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a face ID is or where to find it. Since the schema already provides adequate documentation, the baseline score of 3 is correct, as no additional parameter semantics are offered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('details of a specific face'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'dual_get_object' or 'dual_get_template_faces', which also retrieve specific resources. A more specific distinction would elevate this to a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With siblings like 'dual_list_faces' for listing faces and 'dual_get_object' for retrieving objects, there's no indication that this tool is specifically for face details. This lack of contextual guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it can return either a URL or content based on the no_redirect parameter, which is useful behavioral context not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and appropriately sized for this simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain what format the content returns in, whether there are size limitations, or authentication requirements. Without an output schema, some additional detail about return values would be helpful for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions the storage ID concept for file_id and implies the URL/content choice for no_redirect, but doesn't add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('file's URL or content'), specifying it retrieves by storage ID. It distinguishes from siblings like dual_get_object or dual_get_template by focusing specifically on files, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other file-related tools like dual_upload_file or dual_delete_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over other get operations like dual_get_object, or when to use the no_redirect parameter. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive, idempotent read operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope of details returned (properties, ownership, faces, actions, metadata), which isn't in the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional context like rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, which could be useful given the lack of output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full details of a tokenized object') and elaborates with specific details ('its properties, ownership, faces, actions, and metadata'). There's no wasted wording, and every part contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks output schema, so the description doesn't explain return values or format, which could be helpful. For a read operation, it's minimally complete, but more context on usage or behavioral nuances would enhance completeness, especially with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'object_id' clearly documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 'full details of a tokenized object', specifying what information is retrieved (properties, ownership, faces, actions, metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_get_object_activity' or 'dual_get_object_parents' by emphasizing comprehensive details rather than specific aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'dual_public_get_object' or 'dual_search_objects', which slightly limits sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'dual_public_get_object' (likely public vs. authenticated access), 'dual_get_object_children' (for hierarchical data), or 'dual_search_objects' (for filtered lists). There's no context on prerequisites, such as authentication requirements, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying a read operation and hierarchical context. It doesn't disclose additional details like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'parents' means in practice (e.g., direct ancestors or all ancestors). No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence: 'Get parent objects in a hierarchical object tree.' It's front-loaded with the core action and context, with zero wasted words. This makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly and efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral insights. For a read-only tool with good annotations, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'object_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as clarifying the format of object IDs or how they relate to the hierarchy. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to heavily.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get parent objects in a hierarchical object tree.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('parent objects'), and the context ('hierarchical object tree') helps differentiate it from siblings like 'dual_get_object' or 'dual_get_object_children'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing object ID, or compare it to related tools like 'dual_get_object_children' for navigating the hierarchy. Without this, the agent lacks context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations declare, such as rate limits or authentication needs, but doesn't contradict them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Get full details'), and every word earns its place by specifying the resource and included details without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate for a read-only tool. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail return values like structure or pagination, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'template_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or where to find template IDs, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'template', specifying what details are retrieved ('property schema, actions, and factory config'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_list_templates' (which lists) and 'dual_create_template' (which creates), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'dual_public_get_template' (public version).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_list_templates' for overviews or 'dual_public_get_template' for public access. The description implies usage for retrieving full details of a specific template, but lacks explicit context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'storage assets' entail. It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides minimal additional value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations cover safety and behavior, and the schema fully documents the single parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., what 'storage assets' includes), and it lacks usage context, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'template_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all storage assets') and resource ('associated with a template'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_template_faces' or 'dual_get_template', which might retrieve different template-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dual_get_template' or 'dual_get_template_faces', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying 'public profile,' which hints at limited data access, but doesn't elaborate on rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single parameter, high schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate for a basic read operation. However, without an output schema, it doesn't clarify what 'public profile' includes or the response format, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'wallet_id' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any extra parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('wallet's public profile'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'dual_get_object' or 'dual_get_me', which also retrieve data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools like 'dual_get_object' or 'dual_get_organization' that might retrieve related data, there's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world). The description adds no additional context about authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides minimal value beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input schema (one parameter) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., what 'details' include), and it lacks sibling differentiation, leaving gaps in full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'webhook_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing guidance. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('details of a specific webhook'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_webhook' vs 'dual_list_webhooks' or 'dual_update_webhook', which would require explicit scope clarification for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention siblings like 'dual_list_webhooks' for listing multiple webhooks or 'dual_update_webhook' for modifications, leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying the filtering scope ('by action ID or template'), but doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the essential information about filtering capabilities.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with comprehensive annotations and full parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what 'executed actions' include or the response format, leaving gaps in understanding the return values despite the good structural coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions filtering by 'action ID or template' which aligns with two parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('executed actions'), making the purpose understandable. It mentions filtering capabilities, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_list_action_types' or 'dual_get_action', which could cause confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dual_get_action' (for single action details) or 'dual_list_action_types' (for action types rather than executions), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for filtering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying that roles are included in the output, which isn't in the annotations. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination, or error handling, limiting its transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all members') and includes key detail ('with their roles') without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on output structure or error cases, which could help the agent use it more effectively despite the annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'organization_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description provides no extra parameter insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all members of an organization with their roles'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_organization' or 'dual_list_organizations', which might also provide member information indirectly, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an organization ID, or compare it to siblings like 'dual_get_organization' for member details or 'dual_remove_org_member' for related actions, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true), so the description doesn't need to repeat safety information. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations declare—such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'list all' means in practice (e.g., completeness guarantees).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all roles') and specifies the scope ('defined for an organization'). Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter input schema, comprehensive annotations covering safety and behavior, and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't address what the output looks like (e.g., list format, role properties) or potential limitations, leaving gaps that the agent must infer from context or tool name patterns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'organization_id' fully documented in the schema as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying the tool operates within an organizational context, which is already evident from the tool name and schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all roles defined for an organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_list_org_members' or 'dual_list_organizations', which would require mentioning this specifically lists roles rather than members or organizations themselves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an organization_id), when this would be appropriate versus other listing tools, or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (non-deterministic), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds context about the verification code source (email/phone) and the action ('complete registration'), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like error conditions, rate limits, or auth requirements, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Complete registration') and provides essential context ('verification code sent to your email/phone'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter), annotations cover safety and idempotency, but there's no output schema. The description is minimal—it states what the tool does but lacks details on outcomes (e.g., success response, error handling) or integration with siblings like 'dual_register'. It's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'code' parameter fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format, length, or validation rules). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Complete registration by submitting the verification code sent to your email/phone.' It specifies the verb ('complete registration') and resource ('verification code'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_register' or 'dual_reset_password_verify', which appear related. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have initiated registration via 'dual_register'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'dual_register' or 'dual_reset_password_verify'. Usage is implied from the purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover key traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying the two-step action (submit code + set password), which isn't in the annotations. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., invalid code) or side effects (e.g., session invalidation).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a two-step verification and password update), the description is minimal but functional. Annotations provide safety and idempotency info, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, with no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., success confirmation or error details), leaving a gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('code' and 'new_password'), including a minLength constraint for the password. The description mentions these parameters implicitly ('reset code' and 'new password') but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Submit reset code and set a new password') and resource (password reset), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'dual_reset_password', but the verb 'verify' in the name and the description's focus on code submission and password setting provide adequate clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'dual_reset_password' (which likely initiates the reset) or 'dual_login'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must have requested a reset first) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, which the description aligns with by implying a write action ('Send'). However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't clarify rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'openWorldHint' means in practice (e.g., side effects on wallets).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key parameters (wallets, message template). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, non-destructive mutation), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations, relying heavily on annotations and schema for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (to, template_id, subject, body, data). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how template overrides work or data variable usage, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send a notification message') and target ('to one or more wallets using a message template'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_send_support_message' or 'dual_create_message_template', which handle similar messaging functions but for different contexts or purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a template ID from 'dual_create_message_template'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'dual_send_support_message' for support contexts, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it clarifies the recipient ('DUAL team') but doesn't mention delivery mechanisms, response expectations, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple send operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a message-sending tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks information about response format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The annotations help by indicating this is a write operation, but the description could better prepare the agent for what happens after invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (subject, body, public flag). This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra context about parameter relationships or usage examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('send') and target ('support message to the DUAL team'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'dual_send_notification' by specifying it's for support messages rather than general notifications. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'dual_list_support_messages' (a read operation), which would have made it a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), appropriate contexts, or when to choose this over other communication tools like 'dual_send_notification'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key traits: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (flexible inputs), idempotentHint=true (safe retries), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as specifying updatable fields, but doesn't elaborate on permissions, side effects, or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update an action type's') and specifies the updatable fields without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 4 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and fields but lacks usage guidelines, error handling, or response details. Annotations provide safety and idempotency info, but more behavioral context would help the agent use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'action_type_id' as 'Resource ID', 'name' as 'New name'). The description lists the updatable fields ('name, description, or payload schema'), which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant meaning beyond it, such as format details or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('action type'), and specifies the updatable fields ('name, description, or payload schema'), which distinguishes it from generic update tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools like dual_update_face or dual_update_template, which follow similar patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing action type), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like dual_create_action_type or dual_list_action_types, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key traits: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (flexible inputs), idempotentHint=true (safe retries), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal context by implying it updates existing data, but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update a face's display URL or type') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks output details (no output schema) and deeper contextual cues. It's complete enough for basic use but could benefit from more guidance on usage and edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Resource ID' for face_id). The description adds no extra meaning beyond stating 'display URL or type', which is already covered by the schema. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'face', specifying what can be updated: 'display URL or type'. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'dual_update_object' or 'dual_update_template', which might also update related resources, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a face ID from 'dual_get_face' or 'dual_list_faces', or when to choose this over other update tools. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the constraint 'Only mutable properties can be changed,' which provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations convey. The annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive (destructiveHint: false), idempotent (idempotentHint: true) write operation (readOnlyHint: false) with open-world semantics (openWorldHint: true). The description doesn't add information about authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key constraint. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation operation with 2 parameters), rich annotations covering key behavioral aspects, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and adds one important constraint about mutable properties, but doesn't provide guidance on usage context or error handling that would be helpful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (object_id as 'Resource ID' and properties as 'Properties to update'). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints beyond mutability mentioned in the behavioral context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and target ('properties of a tokenized object'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like dual_update_face, dual_update_organization, or dual_update_template, which all appear to update different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate compared to other update tools in the sibling list, or any contextual constraints beyond the basic property mutability note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (partial updates allowed), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds that it updates specific fields (name, description, image), which complements the annotations by specifying scope. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, efficiently lists fields without redundancy. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, with no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency) and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output information (no output schema provided) and doesn't address error cases or side effects. Given the context, it meets basic needs but could be more informative about behavioral nuances.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Resource ID', 'New name'). The description lists the updatable fields (name, description, image), which aligns with schema but doesn't add significant semantic context beyond what's already documented in the schema properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('organization') with specific fields (name, description, image). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_create_organization' (create vs update) and 'dual_get_organization' (read vs update), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'dual_update_object' or 'dual_update_template'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing organization_id), when not to use it, or compare with similar tools like 'dual_update_object' for organization updates. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying what can be updated (URL or active status), but doesn't elaborate on side effects, permissions, or error conditions beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential information and has no redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations provide safety and idempotency info, and the schema fully documents parameters, the description is adequate for a basic update tool. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values or potential errors, leaving some context gaps for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Resource ID' for webhook_id, 'New endpoint URL' for url). The description mentions 'URL or active status', which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant semantic detail beyond it, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('webhook') with specific attributes ('URL or active status'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_update_face' or 'dual_update_organization' beyond the resource name, which is implied but not stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'dual_create_webhook' or 'dual_delete_webhook', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing webhook ID. It lacks context about typical use cases or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety aspects. It adds value by specifying the types of details returned (members, roles, account info), which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it lacks behavioral details like error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, keeping it at an average score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get organization details') and elaborates with specific examples ('including members, roles, and account info'). There is no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and clear purpose, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what details are returned, which is helpful since there's no output schema. However, it could improve by mentioning sibling tools or usage context to address gaps in guidelines.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'organization_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get organization details including members, roles, and account info.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('organization details') with concrete examples of what details are included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_list_organizations' or 'dual_get_org_balance', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dual_list_organizations' (for listing multiple organizations) or 'dual_get_org_balance' (for specific financial data), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an organization_id. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, etc.), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds minimal value by specifying what is retrieved ('current balance and currency'), but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety and behavior, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what data is retrieved, but could be slightly enhanced by mentioning the return format or any limitations. However, for a read-only tool with good annotations, it's sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'organization_id' well-documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning or context about this parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage without compensating with additional insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('current balance and currency for an organization'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_wallet' or 'dual_get_organization', which might also retrieve financial or organizational data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as other 'get' tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'dual_get_wallet' or 'dual_get_organization'). It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for its use, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true (safe read), openWorldHint=true (may return variable data), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds context about authentication ('authenticated wallet'), which isn't in annotations, but doesn't disclose other behaviors like rate limits, pagination, or response format. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all API keys') and adds essential context ('for the authenticated wallet'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output details (no schema provided) and doesn't explain behavioral nuances like data freshness or error cases. For a list tool, it's functional but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully documented). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('API keys'), specifying scope ('all') and authentication context ('for the authenticated wallet'). It distinguishes from siblings like dual_create_api_key (create) and dual_delete_api_key (delete), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like dual_list_actions or dual_list_webhooks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for viewing API keys, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), compare to other list tools, or specify use cases like auditing or key management. The context is clear but lacks explicit usage rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds useful context about what batches are and their purpose (ZK-rollup anchoring), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and provide valuable context about batches. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), 100% schema coverage, and simple pagination parameters, the description provides adequate context. The main gap is lack of output information (no output schema), but for a list operation with good annotations, this is acceptable. A perfect score would require addressing the sibling tool differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (limit with range/default, next as cursor). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('sequencer batches'), and provides additional context about what batches are ('group multiple transactions for efficient on-chain anchoring via ZK-rollup'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_batch' or 'dual_batch_actions', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With sibling tools like 'dual_get_batch' (singular) and 'dual_batch_actions' available, there's no indication whether this is for listing all batches, filtered batches, or how it differs from other batch-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false). The description adds minimal context about filtering options but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'next' parameter), rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and filtering capabilities. Every word serves a clear function, and the information is front-loaded with no wasted verbiage or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety and behavior, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource type and filtering options, though it could better address pagination behavior and result format to fully compensate for the missing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description mentions filtering by transaction hash, token, or token address, which aligns with three parameters but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List deposit transactions') and resource ('deposit transactions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_list_actions' or 'dual_list_objects' beyond specifying the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other list tools or when not to use it, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as pagination, sorting, or response format details, but doesn't contradict the annotations either.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on output (e.g., format, fields) and doesn't address potential complexities like filtering or pagination, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't introduce confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all notification message templates'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_list_templates' or 'dual_list_template_variations', which might cause confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'dual_get_message_template' (for a single template) or other list tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it lists 'all variations' and defines variations, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or return format. With annotations providing core traits, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and resource, and the second clarifies what variations are. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured, making it easy to parse without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single required parameter), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It defines the resource and scope ('all variations'), but lacks details on return values or error handling. With annotations filling key gaps, it's mostly adequate for a read-only list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'template_id', which is documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is applied, as no additional parameter semantics are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('variations of a template'), explaining that variations are alternative configurations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dual_get_template' (which fetches a single template) and 'dual_list_templates' (which lists templates, not variations). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'dual_get_template_assets' or 'dual_get_template_faces', which might be related but not identical.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid template_id), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'dual_get_template' (for single template details) or 'dual_list_templates' (for listing templates themselves). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('Returns the org with its ID and FQDN'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error conditions, rate limits, or permission requirements, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just one sentence that efficiently states the action, resource, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a creation operation with 4 parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks details on error handling, side effects, or integration with sibling tools. The annotations help, but more context would improve completeness for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for 'fqdn' or constraints for 'image'. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'new organization (multi-tenant workspace)', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'dual_update_organization' and 'dual_get_organization' by focusing on creation rather than modification or retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'dual_list_organizations' or 'dual_update_organization'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide key behavioral hints: destructiveHint=true (deletion), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), readOnlyHint=false (mutation), and openWorldHint=true (handles unknown IDs). The description adds value by specifying 'face definition' as the target, but doesn't elaborate on consequences (e.g., if deletion affects related objects) or auth requirements. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a face definition'), making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully documents the single parameter. However, it lacks details on error cases, return values, or side effects, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter ('face_id') documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as explaining what constitutes a valid face ID or where to obtain it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a face definition' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('face definition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_delete_file' or 'dual_delete_template' beyond the resource name, missing explicit distinction about what makes a 'face definition' unique in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a face ID from 'dual_get_face' or 'dual_list_faces'), exclusions, or comparisons to similar deletion tools like 'dual_delete_file'. Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, and while it doesn't add significant behavioral details beyond them, it doesn't need to given the comprehensive annotation coverage. The description could have mentioned what 'delete' entails (e.g., irreversible removal), but the annotations provide sufficient context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the comprehensive annotations (destructive, idempotent, etc.) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks output information (no schema provided) and doesn't explain the deletion's impact or confirm success behavior, leaving some gaps in understanding the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'webhook_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is adequate but not exceptional, resulting in the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('webhook subscription'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'dual_delete_api_key' or 'dual_delete_template' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a webhook ID from 'dual_list_webhooks' or 'dual_get_webhook'), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'dual_update_webhook' or 'dual_test_webhook'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as 'Remove' implies a destructive action consistent with annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects (e.g., access revocation) or permissions needed, leaving some gaps despite annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. Annotations cover key behavioral traits (destructive, idempotent), and the schema fully documents parameters. However, the description lacks details on outcomes (e.g., confirmation message) or error cases, leaving some context gaps that could aid the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or validation rules. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('a member from an organization'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_delete_api_key' or 'dual_delete_face' beyond the resource type, missing explicit distinction about what makes this removal unique versus other deletion operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., member must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove last admin), or related tools like 'dual_list_org_members' for verification. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies this is for 'gated' features (implying permission-based access) and involves a 'request' process (suggesting approval workflows). Annotations already indicate it's non-destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, and open-world, but the description usefully adds the gated/request context without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for this tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations provide good behavioral coverage (non-destructive, idempotent, etc.) and the schema fully documents parameters, the description adds some useful context about gated features and request processes. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what happens after the request (approval status, confirmation, etc.), leaving some gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters ('feature' and 'reason'). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('request access') and target resource ('gated platform feature'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'dual_get_organization' or 'dual_update_organization' that might also relate to access management, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools like 'dual_create_organization' or 'dual_update_organization' that might involve access control, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for this specific access request function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (flexible inputs), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds value by specifying what aspects can be updated (name, property schema, access rules), which clarifies the scope of changes beyond just 'update template.' It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects, but with good annotation coverage, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update a template's') and lists key updatable aspects. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration—every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage, rich annotations (covering mutation, idempotency, etc.), and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't explain the response format, error conditions, or how partial updates work (e.g., are all parameters optional except template_id?). For a mutation tool, more behavioral context would be helpful despite good annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'template_id' as 'Resource ID', 'name' as 'New name'). The description lists updatable fields ('name, property schema, or access rules') which maps to parameters but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('template') along with specific fields that can be modified ('name, property schema, or access rules'). It distinguishes from creation tools like 'dual_create_template' by focusing on updates, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'dual_update_object' or 'dual_update_organization' that work on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a template_id), when not to use it, or compare it to sibling tools like 'dual_get_template' for viewing or 'dual_delete_template' for removal. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal context beyond this, only noting that it 'counts objects' without returning full objects. It doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'openWorldHint' means in practice. With annotations covering the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Count objects matching filter criteria without returning the full objects.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a key constraint. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the purpose and key constraint (no full objects returned). However, it could benefit from more context on what 'count' returns (e.g., a number, JSON structure) or how the filter works, but with annotations and schema coverage, it's mostly adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'filter' parameter fully documented in the schema as 'Filter criteria (same as search).' The description doesn't add any meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of filter usage or how it differs from search. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is correct, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Count objects matching filter criteria without returning the full objects.' It specifies the verb ('count'), resource ('objects'), and scope ('matching filter criteria'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'dual_list_objects' or 'dual_search_objects' that return full objects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'dual_public_get_stats' or other counting tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating 'without returning the full objects,' suggesting this tool should be used when only a count is needed rather than object details. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_list_objects' or 'dual_search_objects,' nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the scope of returned data (deposit addresses, tokens, fee structure), which isn't in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format details, keeping it from a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get the platform's payment configuration') and details the data scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, open-world, idempotent), and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It specifies what data is returned but doesn't explain format, authentication needs, or error handling. For a configuration retrieval tool, this is minimally viable but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's fine here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it compensates for the lack of parameters by clearly stating what the tool retrieves, though it could briefly note 'no inputs required' for clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('platform's payment configuration'), specifying what data is retrieved: deposit addresses, supported tokens, and fee structure. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on payment configuration, unlike other 'get_' tools for actions, objects, or templates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar retrieval tools (e.g., 'dual_get_organization'), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), timing (e.g., before processing payments), or exclusions (e.g., not for real-time fee calculations). With many sibling tools, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context by explaining what a checkpoint contains, but doesn't address rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides essential context about checkpoint contents. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool returns (checkpoints with state roots and proofs), though it doesn't detail output format or pagination, which would be helpful given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('ZK-rollup checkpoints'), and specifies what each checkpoint contains ('state root and proof that anchors batches to L1'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dual_get_checkpoint' (singular) and other list tools for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'dual_list_checkpoints' instead of 'dual_get_checkpoint' or other list tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the resource type ('notification messages'), which isn't in the annotations, but doesn't elaborate on behavioral aspects like rate limits or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich annotations (read-only, non-destructive, open-world, idempotent) and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete for a list operation. However, the lack of an output schema means the description could benefit from hinting at return format, though it's not strictly required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'next') fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('notification messages sent through the platform'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_list_support_messages' or 'dual_list_message_templates', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of sibling tools like 'dual_list_support_messages' for support-related messages or 'dual_list_message_templates' for templates, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds value by specifying 'permanently' (emphasizing irreversibility) and 'revoke' (implying access termination), which provides useful context beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail rate limits or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action ('permanently revoke and delete'). It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with one parameter) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is minimally complete. However, without an output schema, it lacks details on return values (e.g., success confirmation or error messages), leaving some gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'api_key_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description does not add further meaning or clarify the ID format (e.g., UUID), so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('permanently revoke and delete') and the resource ('an API key'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dual_create_api_key' and 'dual_list_api_keys' by focusing on deletion rather than creation or listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as whether it's for cleanup, security, or error correction. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing admin access) or exclusions (e.g., not for temporary deactivation), leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent operation with openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it sends a code (implying an external communication action) and mentions the delivery channels (email/phone). This clarifies the tool's side effects beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail rate limits, success/failure responses, or whether both email and phone can be used simultaneously.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Send a password reset code') and specifies the target ('to the wallet's email/phone'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the action and parameters but lacks details on return values (e.g., success confirmation, error cases). Annotations provide good behavioral hints, but the description could better address the tool's role in the broader reset flow (e.g., linking to 'dual_reset_password_verify'). It's minimally complete given the simple operation but misses opportunities to guide the agent on next steps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions for 'email' and 'phone_number'. The description adds minimal semantics by confirming these are the target channels for the reset code, but doesn't provide additional details like format requirements, validation rules, or whether at least one parameter is required. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send a password reset code') and target ('to the wallet's email/phone'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'dual_reset_password_verify' by focusing on the request phase rather than verification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other communication tools like 'dual_send_notification' beyond the specific reset context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a password reset is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'dual_reset_password_verify' or 'dual_login'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the wallet must exist) or exclusions (e.g., not for account recovery without email/phone). Usage is contextually implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide key behavioral hints (non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds value by specifying the action is for testing and verification. It doesn't contradict annotations, and it offers context beyond them, though it could mention more about response handling or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), annotations cover safety and behavior well, and the description adds testing context. However, it lacks details on expected responses, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving some gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter documentation in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'webhook_id' identifies the endpoint and 'payload' is optional test data, but this mostly repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('send') and resource ('test payload to a webhook endpoint'), and it distinguishes the verification intent. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_update_webhook' or 'dual_get_webhook', which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for verification ('to verify it's working'), providing some context, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_update_webhook' for configuration or 'dual_get_webhook' for status checks. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (dynamic action types), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds valuable context: 'Actions are the primary way to change object state' and mentions the Event Bus mechanism, which helps the agent understand this is a state-changing operation with event-driven architecture.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, examples, and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides adequate context. It explains the tool's role in the system (primary state change mechanism via Event Bus) and prerequisites. The main gap is no output schema, but the description doesn't need to explain return values given the structured annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema, mentioning that 'payload depends on action type schema' and that actions change object state, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute an action on a tokenized object via the Event Bus' with specific examples (mint, transfer, redeem, update). It distinguishes from siblings like dual_get_object (read) or dual_update_object (direct update), but doesn't explicitly contrast with dual_batch_actions (batch execution).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('Actions are the primary way to change object state') and provides prerequisites (action_type must match registered type, object must belong to allowed template). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like dual_batch_actions for multiple actions or dual_update_object for direct updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('all faces associated with a specific template'), which isn't covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations (e.g., 'Get' aligns with readOnlyHint=true). However, it misses details like rate limits or response format, keeping it from a top score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get all faces') and avoids redundancy. Every part of the sentence serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single required parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource scope and action, but could improve by hinting at return values (e.g., list of faces) or error cases. For a read-only tool with good annotations, it meets most needs but has minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'template_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the template_id is used to filter faces. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description provides marginal context but no extra details on format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('all faces associated with a specific template'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_get_face' (single face) and 'dual_list_faces' (all faces without template filter), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully specify scope (e.g., pagination, sorting) which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'a specific template', suggesting this tool is for retrieving faces linked to a particular template. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'dual_list_faces' or 'dual_get_face', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication). The context is clear but lacks comparative or exclusionary details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, non-destructive operations. The description adds value by specifying that objects are 'tokenized' and 'owned by wallets', and mentions pagination support, which isn't covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the resource and ownership, the second lists filters and pagination. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully describes parameters, the description provides adequate context for a list operation. It explains the nature of objects and available filters. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values (e.g., structure of listed objects), leaving a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description mentions filtering by template, owner, FQDN, or geographic hash, which aligns with parameters but doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema. It also notes pagination, which relates to 'limit' and 'next' parameters, but this is already clear in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List tokenized objects') and resource ('asset instances'), explaining that objects are created from templates and owned by wallets. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'dual_get_object' (singular) but not from 'dual_search_objects' or 'dual_public_search_objects', which might offer similar filtering capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing objects with specific filters (template, owner, FQDN, geo_hash) and mentions pagination support. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_search_objects' or 'dual_public_search_objects', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about what templates are and the filtering options, which helps the agent understand the domain context. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and defines templates, the second specifies filtering options. No wasted words, front-loaded with core functionality. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with filtering/pagination), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the resource and filtering but doesn't detail output format or pagination behavior, which is a minor gap since there's no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all four parameters (prefix, fqdn, limit, next). The description mentions filtering by prefix or FQDN, which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('token templates'), and explains what templates are ('define the structure, properties, and actions of tokenized objects'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_get_template' (singular fetch) and 'dual_public_list_templates' (public version). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'dual_list_template_variations' or 'dual_list_objects' which might be related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing templates with optional filtering by prefix or FQDN, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_public_list_templates' (public access) or 'dual_get_template' (single template). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover key traits (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc.), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by specifying the filterable attributes (type, template, action, active status), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond just being a safe read operation. No contradictions with annotations exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all registered webhooks') and follows with filter details. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (simple list with filters), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It lacks output schema, but the description doesn't need to explain return values. The main gap is minimal guidance on usage versus siblings, but overall it provides sufficient context for the agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'type' as 'Filter by event type'). The description lists the filterable fields but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all registered webhooks'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dual_get_webhook' (singular retrieval) and 'dual_create_webhook'/'dual_delete_webhook'/'dual_update_webhook' (mutations). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'dual_list_actions' or 'dual_list_templates', which would be needed for a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving webhooks with optional filtering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'dual_get_webhook' (for a specific webhook) or other list tools. It mentions filtering capabilities, which suggests context, but lacks clear when/when-not statements or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover key traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about authentication not being required, which isn't in the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral details like rate limits, error handling, or response format, limiting added value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Get a public object's details' and 'No authentication required') earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency) and a fully described single parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It adds the key authentication context. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning the type of details returned (e.g., metadata, content) to fully compensate for the missing output information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'object_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('public object's details'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'dual_get_object', which likely requires authentication, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context with 'No authentication required', which implicitly guides usage for public access scenarios. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'dual_get_object' for authenticated access), so it's not fully explicit about alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover key traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds minimal value by stating 'No authentication required.' This provides some context beyond annotations, but doesn't elaborate on rate limits, error handling, or response format, keeping it at an adequate level.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential context ('No authentication required'). There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with one parameter, high schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details on output format or error cases, but for a read-only public tool, this is a minor gap, not critical for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'template_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any extra meaning or examples for the parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('public template's details'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_template' or 'dual_public_list_templates', which would require mentioning specific scope or output differences for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context with 'No authentication required,' which helps distinguish it from authenticated tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the authentication guidance is valuable for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation with open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that a verification code will be sent, which clarifies the workflow and potential side effects. It doesn't mention rate limits, auth needs, or error conditions, but with annotations covering core traits, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that front-load the primary action ('Create a new wallet account') and immediately follow with critical behavioral context (verification code). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (account creation with verification), annotations provide good coverage of behavioral traits, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds key workflow context (verification code sent), which is crucial for understanding next steps. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values (e.g., success response or error handling), leaving a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., email, password with min length). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details for email/phone or nickname usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new wallet account') and resource ('wallet'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_login' or 'dual_get_wallet' by focusing on account creation rather than authentication or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'dual_register_verify', which handles verification, leaving some room for improvement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for initial account setup by mentioning verification code delivery, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_login' for existing users or 'dual_register_verify' for completing verification. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, such as whether email or phone must be verified first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), but the description adds valuable context: it discloses that the tool returns a public URL and mentions the server fetches the file from a URL, which isn't obvious from the schema alone. It doesn't contradict annotations (e.g., 'Upload' aligns with readOnlyHint=false). However, it could add more on rate limits or auth needs, so it's not a full 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and return value, followed by usage examples, all in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does and returns, the second provides context. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (upload with 2 params), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, return value, and usage examples. However, it could be more comprehensive by explaining error cases or the public URL's format, but annotations help fill gaps. It's not perfect but sufficient for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'file_url' and 'folder'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra syntax or format info). According to rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate further, so it earns a 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Upload a file') and resource ('to DUAL storage'), and specifies the return value ('Returns a public URL'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_get_file' or 'dual_delete_file' by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all upload-related siblings (none listed), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context with 'Useful for template assets, face images, and attachments,' which suggests common scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of when to use 'dual_create_face' for face images instead), and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions. This is adequate but has clear gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld operation. The description adds value by specifying that it 'registers' a new action type, which aligns with the annotations, and mentions 'optional JSON schema for payload validation,' providing additional context about functionality beyond the structured data. However, it does not detail error conditions or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Register a new action type') and includes the key feature ('optional JSON schema for payload validation') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and key feature, but could improve by addressing usage scenarios or error handling. The annotations provide safety and behavioral context, reducing the burden on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the three parameters (name, description, schema). The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning the optional JSON schema, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, such as format examples or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Register a new action type') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'dual_update_action_type' (for updates) and 'dual_list_action_types' (for listing). It specifies the resource ('action type') and mentions the optional JSON schema feature, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating new action types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_update_action_type' for modifications or 'dual_list_action_types' for viewing. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by warning that 'The key value is only shown once — save it immediately,' which is critical behavioral information about data persistence and security not covered by structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the action, integration context, and key behavioral warning. However, it lacks details on response format (e.g., what fields are returned) or error conditions, which would enhance completeness for an agent invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (name and permissions). The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or permission examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new API key') and resource ('for server-to-server integration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dual_list_api_keys (list) and dual_delete_api_key (delete). The purpose is unambiguous and directly addresses what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for server-to-server integration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dual_login (for user authentication) or dual_create_webhook (for event notifications). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld operation. The description adds context by specifying what the template defines (property schema, allowed actions, access rules) and provides an example, which helps clarify the tool's behavior beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail side effects like authentication needs or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specifics and an example. It uses two concise sentences with no wasted words, effectively communicating key information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose and provides an example, but could improve by detailing output behavior or error handling, though annotations cover safety aspects adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'property schema, allowed actions, and access rules' and an example, but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema already covers, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new token template'), specifies what it defines ('structure of tokenized objects'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dual_create_template_variation or dual_update_template by focusing on initial creation of a template with property schema, actions, and access rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for defining tokenized object structures, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dual_create_template_variation or dual_update_template. It provides an example context but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds context by specifying 'real-time notifications' and 'when events occur,' which clarifies the tool's reactive nature beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail potential side effects like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on duplicate registrations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Register a webhook') and adds necessary context ('to receive real-time notifications when events occur on the platform'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 2 required), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and context but lacks details on output (no output schema) and behavioral nuances like error handling or event specifics. However, it suffices for a creation tool with good structured data support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining event type options or secret usage specifics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Register a webhook') and the resource ('to receive real-time notifications when events occur on the platform'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dual_delete_webhook, dual_get_webhook, dual_list_webhooks, dual_test_webhook, and dual_update_webhook by focusing on creation rather than deletion, retrieval, listing, testing, or updating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for setting up event notifications, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dual_update_webhook for modifications or dual_test_webhook for validation. It lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites, such as whether webhooks require specific permissions or platform configurations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation with open-world semantics. The description adds context by specifying what data is returned ('proof data and state roots'), which is valuable beyond annotations. It does not mention rate limits or authentication needs, but annotations cover the core safety profile adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential details without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only operation with good annotations), the description is largely complete. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return format (e.g., structure of proof data). The annotations and schema cover safety and inputs well, but the output aspect is lightly addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'checkpoint_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description does not add further details about parameter format or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('ZK-rollup checkpoint'), including what data is retrieved ('proof data and state roots'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dual_list_checkpoints' by specifying retrieval of a single checkpoint rather than listing multiple.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a specific checkpoint ID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_list_checkpoints' for browsing or other get tools for different resources. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description adds value by specifying the content ('full activity/audit log') and types of events ('state changes, transfers, and action executions'). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond them, though it lacks details like pagination or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to clarifying the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving logs), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what data is returned (activity log details) but could benefit from mentioning output format or pagination behavior to fully compensate for the missing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with parameters 'object_id' and 'limit' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples for 'object_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('full activity/audit log for an object'), specifying the scope with 'all state changes, transfers, and action executions.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_get_object' (which retrieves object metadata) or 'dual_list_objects' (which lists objects), making the purpose specific and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving activity logs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_get_object' (for basic object info) or 'dual_search_objects' (for finding objects). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by clarifying the scope ('all registered') and purpose of action types, though it doesn't mention behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and resource, the second defines action types. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a list tool with good annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (list operation), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks output details (no output schema) and doesn't address potential constraints like pagination or ordering, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' for filtering and 'limit' for max results). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all registered action types'), with a specific definition of what action types are ('define what operations can be performed on objects'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_list_actions' (which lists action instances) and 'dual_create_action_type' (which creates new types).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving action type definitions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_get_action' (for specific actions) or 'dual_execute_action' (to perform operations). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about pagination support and role filtering, which aren't covered by annotations. No contradictions exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second sentence adds key behavioral features (pagination, role filtering). Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about scope (authenticated wallet), pagination, and filtering. Without an output schema, it could mention return format but isn't required to explain basic list behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (role_name, limit, next). The description mentions role filtering and pagination but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List all organizations'), identifies the resource ('organizations'), and specifies scope ('the authenticated wallet belongs to'). It distinguishes from siblings like dual_get_organization (singular retrieval) and dual_create_organization (creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (listing organizations for the authenticated wallet) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like dual_get_organization or dual_list_org_members. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable context by specifying 'No authentication required,' which isn't captured in annotations, enhancing the agent's understanding of access requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part of the text contributes essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations cover key behavioral traits and the schema fully documents parameters, the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, it could briefly mention the return format (e.g., list of templates) to reach a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (fqdn, limit, next). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('publicly accessible templates'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_list_templates' or 'dual_public_get_template', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context with 'No authentication required,' indicating when this tool is appropriate versus authenticated alternatives. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, preventing a score of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating 'No authentication required', which clarifies access requirements not covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.). It doesn't contradict annotations, and while it could mention more behavioral traits like rate limits or result format, it provides useful operational context that enhances transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. Every word earns its place by stating the purpose and key usage condition, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (search with filtering), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the public access aspect well, but could improve by hinting at result types or limitations, though annotations help mitigate gaps, making it nearly sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'filter' and 'limit'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional details like filter syntax or usage examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Search publicly accessible objects' with the verb 'search' and resource 'publicly accessible objects', making it specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_search_objects' or 'dual_list_objects', which likely have different access requirements or scopes, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context with 'No authentication required', indicating when to use this tool versus authenticated alternatives. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or named alternatives (e.g., 'dual_search_objects' for authenticated searches), so it doesn't fully meet the criteria for a score of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide important behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context by specifying the exact exchange operation, which complements the annotations well. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens to the old access token.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter authentication tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It clearly states what the tool does, though it could benefit from mentioning the expected return value (the new access token) since there's no output schema to document this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'refresh_token' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., token format, expiration details, or error conditions). Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Exchange') and the resources involved ('refresh token for a new access token'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'dual_login' or 'dual_register' by focusing specifically on token refresh rather than initial authentication or user registration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when a refresh token is available), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_login' for initial authentication or 'dual_register' for new accounts. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds useful context by specifying that updates apply to 'nickname, language, or avatar' fields. It doesn't contradict annotations and clarifies the scope of mutable attributes, though it could mention partial updates or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update the authenticated wallet's') and lists the modifiable attributes without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and which fields are updatable, supported by rich annotations. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that updates are partial (since all parameters are optional) or noting the lack of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'New display name' for nickname). The description lists the updatable fields but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints for avatar URLs or language code standards. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('authenticated wallet's nickname, language, or avatar'), making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dual_update_organization or dual_update_object by focusing exclusively on the authenticated user's wallet settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'authenticated wallet', suggesting it's for modifying the current user's profile. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like dual_update_organization for org-level updates or dual_get_me for read-only access, and doesn't mention prerequisites such as authentication requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the atomic 'all succeed or all fail' property, which isn't covered by the existing annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). This is critical information for understanding transaction behavior. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality and atomic guarantee, the second provides usage context with concrete examples. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (atomic execution) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex mutation tool with no output schema, the description does well by explaining the critical atomic behavior. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure (return values, error formats) or address potential side effects beyond the atomic guarantee. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, some additional context about expected responses would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'actions' parameter thoroughly including its structure, constraints (1-50 items), and component fields. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 specific verbs ('execute multiple actions atomically') and resource ('in a single batch'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing atomic batch execution. It provides concrete examples ('mint + transfer + configure in one transaction') that illustrate its unique value proposition compared to individual action tools like dual_execute_action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('useful for complex operations'), implying it should be used for multi-step workflows requiring atomicity. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (like dual_execute_action for single actions), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds value by emphasizing permanence ('Permanently delete') and irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), which reinforces the destructive nature beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail error handling or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Permanently delete a template. This cannot be undone.') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and critical behavior, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with one parameter) and rich annotations (covering destructiveness, idempotency, and mutability), the description is mostly complete. It lacks details on output or error responses, but with no output schema, this is a minor gap, and the annotations provide strong behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'template_id' documented as 'Resource ID.' The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, such as format examples or sourcing instructions, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema provides sufficient documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('permanently delete') and the resource ('a template'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dual_update_template' or 'dual_get_template' by focusing on irreversible removal rather than modification or retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly suggests usage when permanent deletion is needed, as it warns 'This cannot be undone.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_update_template' for modifications or provide prerequisites such as required permissions, leaving some guidance gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by explaining what faces are (visual representations attached to templates), which provides context beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail pagination behavior or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying definition of faces. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (list operation), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format, pagination structure), leaving a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'next') fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('face definitions'), specifies what faces are ('visual representations attached to templates'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_get_face' (singular retrieval) and 'dual_create_face' (creation). It provides specific scope and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing face definitions, with clear context from the tool name and sibling tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'dual_get_template_faces' or 'dual_get_face', or any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool returns JWT tokens and automatically sets authentication for the session. While annotations provide hints (not read-only, open world, idempotent, non-destructive), the description clarifies the authentication persistence behavior, which is crucial for understanding session management.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with just two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains the authentication mechanism and return value, the second describes the session behavior. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an authentication tool with comprehensive annotations and full parameter documentation, the description provides good contextual completeness by explaining the authentication flow, token return, and session persistence. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description partially compensates by specifying 'Returns JWT tokens.'
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing additional semantic context about parameter usage or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Authenticate with email/phone and password'), identifies the resource (DUAL system), and distinguishes from siblings like dual_login_guest and dual_refresh_token by specifying the authentication method. It goes beyond the tool name to explain the authentication mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('for subsequent API calls' and 'Sets auth automatically for this session'), establishing it as the primary authentication mechanism. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like dual_login_guest for guest access or dual_refresh_token for token renewal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies 'limited permissions' (which annotations don't cover) and 'No credentials required' (clarifying authentication requirements). Annotations already indicate it's non-destructive and non-idempotent, but the description provides practical usage context without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two short sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second adds crucial behavioral context. There's zero wasted language and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and its authentication requirements. However, it doesn't describe what the guest session enables or what 'limited permissions' specifically means, leaving some behavioral aspects undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single optional 'nickname' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a guest session') and resource ('guest session'), with explicit mention of 'limited permissions' that distinguishes it from other login/authentication tools like 'dual_login' or 'dual_register'. It provides a complete purpose statement in a single sentence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('No credentials required'), which implicitly suggests it's for unauthenticated access scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'dual_login' for regular authentication, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context by specifying it retrieves profile data, which aligns with annotations and provides useful behavioral insight without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists returned fields without any wasted words. Every element serves to clarify the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with 0 parameters, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what data is returned, but could slightly improve by mentioning the response format or that it requires authentication, though annotations cover some aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('authenticated wallet's profile'), listing the exact fields returned (ID, nickname, email, avatar, language, activation status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dual_get_wallet' by specifying it's for the current authenticated wallet rather than any wallet.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'authenticated wallet's profile,' indicating it should be used when needing the current user's wallet data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'dual_get_wallet' for other wallets, which would require explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool is for 'public' statistics and 'No authentication required,' which aren't covered by the existing annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, response format, or data freshness, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get public platform statistics') and includes essential usage guidance ('No authentication required'). Every word serves a clear purpose with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, public access, and authentication status. However, without an output schema, it could briefly mention the return format (e.g., 'returns counts as numbers') for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately notes there are no parameters to specify, aligning with the empty input schema, and adds context about the tool's public nature.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get public platform statistics') and enumerates the exact resources returned ('total objects, templates, and wallets'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing its public nature and lack of authentication, unlike most other tools that require authentication.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'No authentication required,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus authentication-required alternatives. It implicitly suggests this is for public data access, contrasting with most sibling tools that likely require authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![dual-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ro-ro-b/dual-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ro-ro-b/dual-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![dual-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ro-ro-b/dual-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ro-ro-b/dual-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ro-ro-b/dual-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server