aiprox-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates well by disclosing the specific return payload fields ('endpoint, pricing, payment rail, capabilities, and models'), which is critical behavioral information given the lack of an output schema. It does not mention error states or caching behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the action and target; the second efficiently lists return fields. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter lookup tool without output schema, the description is complete. It covers the lookup mechanism, the resource scope, and compensates for missing output schema by listing return fields. No additional information is necessary for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'by name' which aligns with the 'name' parameter, but does not add additional semantic detail (syntax rules, case sensitivity) beyond what the schema already provides with its examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with clear resource ('agent') and scope ('full details', 'AIProx registry'). The phrase 'by name' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like find_agent (likely search) and list_agents (likely returns collection).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'by name' provides clear context that this tool is for exact-name lookups, implying when to use it versus find_agent. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion criteria (e.g., 'do not use if you only have partial name').

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