APIbase

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.5.1
Disambiguation5/5
Tools are organized by domain and subdomain, with clear, specific names (e.g., weather.weatherapi.current vs. noaa.weather.observation). Even similar tools have distinct sources and descriptions, making them easy to differentiate.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent dot-separated hierarchy (domain.subdomain.action) with no mixed naming conventions. Patterns like address.geocodio.geocode and weather.airnow.current_zip are uniform across the entire set.
Tool Count2/5
With 618 tools, the server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While it serves as a broad API aggregator, the sheer volume makes it unwieldy and hard to navigate for most use cases.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers an extensive range of domains (weather, finance, health, travel, etc.) with deep data for many. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited social media platforms), but overall it is surprisingly comprehensive for a single server.
Average 4/5 across 618 of 618 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 6 of 9 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 326 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on March 30, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what is already in structured data. For example, it does not explain that the tool returns a single price or whether it requires specific permissions.
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?
Extremely short (7 words) but lacks sufficient detail. While front-loaded, the description is too terse to be useful. It does not earn its place as a complete explanation.
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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, has output schema) and annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'midpoint price' means, how it relates to other price tools, or the format of the output. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of context in 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (token_id). The description mentions 'midpoint price' but does not add semantic context for token_id beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 applies; no 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 'Get midpoint price for a prediction market token' clearly states the action (get) and resource (midpoint price). However, 'midpoint' is ambiguous (could be mid price from orderbook or other). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket.market.orderbook or polymarket.market.detail which might also provide price data.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as polymarket.market.orderbook, polymarket.market.history, or polymarket.market.detail. The description 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as whether data is real-time or delayed, or any 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only 5 words, which is extremely concise. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices informativeness. A few more sentences to explain what 'pool data' includes would improve usability without being verbose.
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?
Despite having a good input schema and annotations, the description fails to explain what the output contains (e.g., pool addresses, liquidity amounts, token pairs). An output schema exists, but the description should still set expectations. For a tool with 4 optional parameters, more context is needed.
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 descriptions for query, network, sort_by, and limit. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 DEX liquidity pool data' is a clear verb+resource, but it is too generic to distinguish from many crypto sibling tools like crypto.coin.detail or crypto.market.overview. It lacks specificity about what pool data entails (e.g., reserves, prices, volume).
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. Given many crypto-related sibling tools, explicit differentiation (e.g., 'Use for liquidity pools, not token prices') is missing.
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, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. The description does not contradict annotations but also does not elaborate on any traits beyond what is already captured.
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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., market names, volumes). It lacks context about pagination, result structure, or the meaning of 'trending'.
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% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to add much. However, it adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters (e.g., what 'sort_by' options imply).
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 states 'Get trending prediction markets' which indicates a clear action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'market.search' or 'market.detail', leaving ambiguity about what makes this specifically 'trending'.
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. There is no mention of scenarios where trending markets are preferred over market.search or other filters, nor 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It does not mention that the tool expands to nearby airports, which is a key 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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 the complexity of up to 6 parameters and the existence of multiple flight siblings, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what 'nearby' means or how results differ from other flight searches.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter info. The description itself adds no value beyond the schema for parameters.
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 'Find nearby flight destinations' clearly indicates the tool's purpose of discovering flight options near a destination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like aviasales.flights.search, which also find flights.
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 such as aviasales.flights.calendar or aviasales.flights.popular. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds no behavioral traits beyond the annotations, which already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world semantics. No mention of pagination, rate limits, or response details.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key constraints (e.g., required origin) without losing conciseness.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered by schema. Description is minimal but sufficient given 100% parameter coverage. Could mention that origin is required and destination is optional.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is 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?
Description clearly states 'Search for flights between airports'. The verb 'Search' and resource 'flights' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'aviasales.flights.calendar' and 'aviasales.flights.cheap' by being the general search tool.
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 siblings like 'aviasales.flights.cheap' or 'aviasales.flights.calendar'. The description does not mention appropriateness contexts or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, idempotent reads. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, pagination).
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?
Description is a single, direct sentence. It is concise with no fluff, though it could benefit from additional context.
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 rich schema (100% coverage, output schema exists), the minimal description is adequate but does not explain return format or typical use cases. Adequate for simple price queries.
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 explains each parameter. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('current prices for cryptocurrencies'). It is specific enough to differentiate from many siblings, though not from all (e.g., 'crypto.market.overview').
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 other crypto tools (e.g., crypto.coin.detail, crypto.price.history). The description 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). It does not mention data freshness, rate limits, or response size. For a tool with rich annotations, the description should still add context like 'returns metadata from on-chain sources' or 'may not include all tokens'.
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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include the network parameter hint without losing conciseness.
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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, the description is too brief to provide complete context for an AI agent. It does not mention which token types are supported (e.g., ERC20, BEP20), what data fields to expect, or how the tool relates to sibling tools like 'crypto.dex.pools' or 'crypto.market.overview'. This shortfall is significant in a server with many crypto-related 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?
Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already describes them adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples, formatting rules, or default behavior (e.g., what happens if network is omitted). 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 'Get token info by contract address' clearly states the action (get), resource (token info), and the primary parameter (contract address). It distinguishes from siblings like 'crypto.coin.detail' which likely focuses on coins rather than tokens. However, it could be more precise about what 'token info' includes (e.g., name, symbol, decimals) to fully differentiate from other crypto tools.
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 'crypto.coin.detail' or 'crypto.price.current'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context (e.g., supported blockchain networks beyond the schema enum). The schema's enum provides network options but the description fails to guide the agent on appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'get detailed info', which overlaps with annotations. It does not contradict annotations.
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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and easy to parse. It wastes no words, though it is slightly underspecified.
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?
The description is too vague ('detailed info') given the tool has three parameters and an output schema. It does not clarify what specific information is returned, and while the output schema exists, the description should provide a better overview. Sibling tools like 'prices' and 'history' suggest specialization that this tool subsumes, but the description doesn't convey that.
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 three parameters. The overview description adds no additional parameter details; it already benefits from thorough schema documentation, so baseline 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 'Get detailed info about a prediction market' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like history, orderbook, prices, search, and trending by implying a general detail retrieval, but does not explicitly name these alternatives.
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 its siblings (e.g., for detailed info vs. history or orderbook). It lacks any contextual hints 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral information beyond what is already conveyed by the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with 8 words, which is concise but may be too brief. It lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) but is not verbose.
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?
Despite a rich output schema and annotations, the description omits important context such as the return format (list of destination airports), the meaning of 'cheapest' (based on fare?), and the relevance of date parameters. Only the origin parameter is mentioned.
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 documented. The description only mentions 'origin airport', but does not add meaning beyond the schema for other parameters like departure_date, return_date, etc.
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 'Find cheapest flight destinations from an origin airport', specifying the verb 'Find' and the resource 'cheapest flight destinations'. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling 'sabre.flights.search', which might also be used for finding flights.
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 'sabre.flights.search'. The description lacks context about scenarios (e.g., exploring low-cost destinations vs. booking specific flights).
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 readOnly, not destructive, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds that results are sorted by amount descending and cites the data source. However, it does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or any side effects 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences are concise, but the first sentence contains inaccuracies that cost clarity. The structure is front-loaded but flawed.
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?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It mentions sorting and source, but omits important context like pagination via limit, default award_type, and filtering scope. Given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. But the description incorrectly mentions search by 'recipient' or 'NAICS code' which are not real parameters, potentially misleading usage. The description adds only marginal context (output fields) beyond 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 identifies the tool as searching federal award data, specifying verb and resource. However, it inaccurately lists search fields like 'recipient' and 'NAICS code' that are not present in the input schema, which may confuse agents.
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 sibling tools like spending.federal.agency or spending.federal.geography. No explicit context for when not to use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds only 'NPS public domain' (licensing) which is not behavioral. No mention of pagination behavior, data freshness, or rate limits 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence listing attributes but lacks structure. It is concise (no wasted words) but could be more informative by including a verb (e.g., 'List' or 'Search') and mention of pagination or default behavior.
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 5 optional parameters, an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not state what type of data is returned (e.g., list of campgrounds) or how results are ordered. The presence of an output schema slightly reduces the burden, but the description still feels incomplete for a tool with multiple filtering options.
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 (state_code, park_code, q, limit, start) having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so 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 tool provides NPS campground information including reservation info, accessibility, amenities, and coordinates. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like travel.nps.parks and travel.nps.alerts by focusing specifically on campgrounds.
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 other NPS tools or how to choose between parameters. The description does not mention filtering strategies or that multiple optional filters can be combined.
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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the prerequisite of completed setup, but otherwise does not elaborate on behavioral aspects. No contradictions.
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 a single sentence listing output fields, which is concise but not overly brief. It avoids unnecessary words.
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?
While output schema is present, the description fails to mention prerequisite steps (e.g., domain setup) and when results are available. This is important for a tool that depends on prior configuration.
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 description. The tool description adds no further parameter context beyond listing output fields. Baseline 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 tool retrieves MIP business analysis results including specific data fields like business name, category, location, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like aipush.analysis.visibility by focusing on profile data.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like aipush.analysis.visibility or aipush.market.report. The parameter description mentions a prerequisite (mip_status='ready'), but the main description does not provide 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, which is acceptable but doesn't enhance transparency.
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 a single sentence, efficiently conveying the core purpose. While concise, it lacks additional context that could be added without becoming verbose, but it achieves front-loading.
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 the existence of multiple sibling flight tools (cheap, search, popular) and a detailed input schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand what a 'calendar' entails (e.g., daily prices, format). The output schema exists but the description still underperforms in 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning for parameters, so it meets the baseline for well-documented schemas.
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 gets a flight price calendar for a route. It is specific and uses a verb+resource structure, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'aviasales.flights.cheap' or 'aviasales.flights.popular', which also return pricing information.
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. The description provides no criteria for selecting 'calendar' over other flight tools, leaving the agent without direction for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds nothing beyond stating it returns stats, which is already obvious from the name. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, 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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates 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 has an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the scope of statistics (e.g., market cap, volume, dominance) and how it differs from 'crypto.market.overview'. More context would improve agent decision-making.
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 coverage, the parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning or usage tips for the 'include_defi' parameter. 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 tool returns global cryptocurrency market statistics (verb+resource). However, it does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'crypto.market.overview', which may also provide global market data.
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 such as 'crypto.market.overview' or other crypto stats tools. The agent is left without clues about when to prefer this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds only 'public domain' and 'direct fetch'; lacks disclosure of rate limits, authentication, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with essential information and examples. No filler, front-loaded with verb and resource.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, description lacks guidance on valid series IDs beyond examples and does not mention data categories covered by the 'total-energy' domain.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description provides examples but no additional semantic context beyond 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?
Clearly states the tool fetches EIA total-energy time-series by series ID, with examples. Distinguishes from category-specific siblings like finance.eia.electricity, but does not explicitly contrast 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?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternative tools (e.g., category-specific EIA tools), nor any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. Description adds minimal behavioral context (only 'largest archive' claim). No mention of rate limits, pagination, or other constraints.
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 sentences: front-loaded with action and resource, no wasted words. 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?
Output schema exists, so description need not explain return values. Provides archive size and AI-opinion count as context. Lacks guidance on when to use, but covers basic search and filter capabilities 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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description repeats filter categories (court, date, relevance) but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
Clearly states the verb 'Search' and resource 'US court opinions' with scope (federal and state) and filter capabilities (court, date, relevance). Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like legal.caselaw.dockets but is sufficiently specific.
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 (e.g., legal.caselaw.dockets for dockets, legal.caselaw.opinion for a single opinion). No when-not or alternative tool references.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations cover, so it meets the baseline with annotations present.
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?
Description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat terse and could include more useful information without losing conciseness.
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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify that the orders belong to the authenticated user, nor does it mention the optionality of market_id or any return details. More context would be helpful.
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% (market_id with description). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?
Description states verb 'Get' and resource 'open orders' on 'Polymarket', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket.trading.history, which could also return order data.
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. Does not mention that it returns current open orders for the authenticated user, or that for historical orders one should use polymarket.trading.history.
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 destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not contradict them. It adds the context of 'limit order', which implies a specific order type, but does not disclose the execution model (e.g., whether the order is filled immediately or persists), return value, or fund locking. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate for adding some but limited value.
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 one sentence with no redundancy, making it very concise. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity; it could include a bit more guidance without becoming verbose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.
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 tool with 7 parameters, destructive behavior, and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention the expected output (e.g., order ID), warn about potential fund usage, or explain the role of critical parameters like token_id and price. The agents operating on financial markets need more context to use this tool safely and 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%, so every parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning or context beyond the schema, such as how parameters relate to each other or practical usage tips. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully covers parameters.
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 'Place' and resource 'limit order on Polymarket', which matches the name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_order, history, and open_orders. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other order types (e.g., market orders) or mention that it's specific to limit orders, which is implicit from the schema.
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. For example, there is no mention of prerequisites like having sufficient balance or needing a token_id from market search. The description gives no context for choosing between place_order and other trading tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and other safety traits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating 'by country', which is misleading because the input schema has no country parameter. This could confuse the agent about required inputs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 12 words, concise and front-loaded. However, it omits important context and contains an inaccuracy, making it merely adequate.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should clarify the scope and any constraints. The misleading country reference and lack of detail on how results are structured make the description incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add meaningful parameter details and introduces a false implication about a country parameter. It does not compensate for any missing schema information.
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: finding streaming, rental, and purchase options for movies or TV shows by country. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tmdb.movies.details or tmdb.movies.search.
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 the tool is for discovering where to watch content, but it does not explicitly guide when to use it over alternatives or mention prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but does not 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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?
Missing crucial context about forecast period (e.g., next 7 days) and whether date filtering is possible. With no date parameter, the tool's behavior is ambiguous. Output schema existence doesn't compensate for this 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 has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning, so baseline 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 (weather forecast), but fails to differentiate from sibling tools like weather.conditions.current, weather.weatherapi.forecast, and others. The lack of specificity on forecast type or time horizon reduces 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like weather.conditions.current (for current conditions) or weather.weatherapi.forecast (another forecast source). No context on 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what is already in annotations. It does not explain response behavior (e.g., what happens if airport not found).
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup 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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, for a tool with many siblings, more context on what constitutes a valid query or result format 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, which already explains 'Airport name, city name, or IATA code'. No additional 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 'Look up airport by name or code' clearly states the action (look up) and resource (airport) with acceptable scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like amadeus.airports.search or sabre.reference.airline, which also look up airports.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the simple lookup purpose, but no exclusions 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating it retrieves detailed info, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance transparency meaningfully.
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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It is efficient but could benefit from a brief mention of optional filters to improve structure without adding length.
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?
With an output schema present, the return format is covered. However, the description fails to mention that optional parameters control which detail sections are included (e.g., description, developer stats). This gap makes it slightly less complete for a 4-parameter 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add semantic value beyond the schema; it simply restates the tool's purpose. Baseline 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 tool retrieves detailed information about a cryptocurrency, distinguishing it from sibling tools like crypto.coin.search (search) or crypto.price.current (price only). However, it lacks explicit differentiation, such as mentioning it returns comprehensive data for a single coin.
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 crypto.coin.search or crypto.price.history. There is no mention of prerequisites or preferred contexts.
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 a safe read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., how trending is determined, limits).
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?
Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded. Could include additional context but no waste.
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-only tool with output schema and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks explanation of 'trending' or filtering.
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 has 100% description coverage for two boolean parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 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 'Get trending cryptocurrencies' clearly states the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools like crypto.coin.detail or crypto.coin.search, though it could explicitly differentiate.
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 other crypto tools (e.g., crypto.coin.search for specific queries). No context 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 already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the claim that it 'Works on any retailer without custom integration', but does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or error behaviors. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description provides marginal added transparency.
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 a single sentence that begins with the key information. It is concise with no filler, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Given its brevity and front-loading, it scores well.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown but referenced), and the description enumerates main output fields. With only three well-documented parameters and a simple extraction purpose, the description covers the essentials. It could mention edge cases or limitations, but overall it is sufficient for the task.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage, with all three parameters (url, discussion, timeout) well-described. The description lists output fields (title, price, etc.) but adds no new meaning to the parameters themselves. Baseline score is appropriate since schema fully documents parameters.
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 'Extract' and resource 'structured product data' and specifies the domain 'e-commerce URL'. It lists output fields and mentions broad compatibility. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like diffbot.articles.extract, missing a chance to guide tool selection.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's suitable for any e-commerce site but does not mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools (e.g., diffbot.knowledge.search). This omission forces 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which convey safety and idempotency. The description adds the source (Banco Central do Brasil) and a licensing note (BrasilAPI MIT) but does not elaborate on behaviors beyond what annotations provide, such as cache behavior or potential errors. Given the strong annotations, the description's contribution is minimal.
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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the key information (rates and source). The inclusion of 'BrasilAPI MIT' is slightly extraneous but not detrimental. The structure is clear 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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It identifies the rates, source, and the refresh option. The output schema exists, so the return format does not need to be described. However, the description could mention that it aggregates multiple rates to enhance 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% coverage for its single parameter (refresh). The schema's description for refresh already explains its purpose. The tool description does not add any new meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so it 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 specifies that the tool returns current SELIC, CDI, and IPCA rates from Banco Central do Brasil. It clearly states the resource (rates) and the verb (current). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like finance.bcb.selic, finance.bcb.cdi, and finance.bcb.ipca which provide individual rates, missing an opportunity to clarify the aggregated nature.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information about use cases (e.g., when needing all three rates in one call) or when not to use it (e.g., if only one rate is needed). The refresh parameter is mentioned but without context on typical usage frequency or caching behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds only the OGL v3.0 license, which is not behavioral context. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., data latency, rate limits) are disclosed.
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: one sentence with examples plus two short phrases. It is efficiently structured, though the license detail could be omitted without loss of agent guidance.
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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it could hint at the structure or fields of case outcomes. It is adequate but slightly incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity.
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?
All four parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description merely restates 'UK coordinate' and 'given month', adding no new semantic value 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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving case outcomes (charged, acquitted, etc.) for crimes at a specific UK coordinate and month. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on outcomes rather than crime counts or police forces.
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 crimes_near. It only mentions usefulness for property safety scoring but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the most critical behavioral aspects. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, authentication, error handling). While adequate with annotations, it misses an opportunity to disclose nuances like potential 404 errors for nonexistent users.
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 concise (single sentence) and front-loaded with the core action ('Get a Lichess user's profile'). It efficiently lists key output fields without unnecessary verbosity. Minor improvement could be separating output details for readability.
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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return format. It covers the main purpose and enumerates major data categories (ratings, games, bio, etc.). For a simple read operation with no complex side effects, this is sufficiently complete.
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 (100% coverage) fully describes the 'username' parameter, including constraints and an example. The description does not add any new semantic information about the parameter; it only expands on the output. Thus, it meets the baseline but provides no 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 tool's function as retrieving a Lichess user's profile and enumerates the included data fields (ratings, games, online status, etc.). However, it does not differentiate from sibling Lichess tools like 'lichess.players.top' or 'lichess.puzzle.daily', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this versus those alternatives.
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 other Lichess tools or alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and sibling 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds the list of returned fields and mentions 'funding links (PodcastIndex)', providing contextual details beyond annotations but no new behavioral traits like rate limits 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loading the purpose ('Full metadata for a single podcast') and listing key fields in a clear, readable manner. Every element adds value with minimal verbosity.
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 parameter (single integer) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's scope. It mentions the source (PodcastIndex) and highlights key metadata fields, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the return value.
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 fully describes the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage. The description repeats 'by Feed ID' but adds no semantic nuance beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 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 tool returns 'full metadata for a single podcast' and enumerates specific fields (title, author, RSS URL, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'media.podcast.search' by focusing on a single podcast by feed ID, but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this over related tools.
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 (e.g., media.podcast.search, media.podcast.episodes). It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or usage context beyond retrieving metadata for a known feed ID.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which sufficiently inform the agent's safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond confirming it is a read operation, which is already evident.
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 a single short sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It contains no extraneous information, but the brevity means it lacks some helpful context that could be included without verbosity.
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 presence of a complete input schema, output schema, and informative annotations, the description provides the minimum viable information. However, it does not address usage context or parameter semantics beyond the schema, leaving room for improvement.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (market_id, interval, days). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a 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 'Get price history for a prediction market', which identifies the tool as providing historical price data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket.market.prices, which may also serve a similar purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as polymarket.market.prices for current prices or polymarket.market.search for finding markets. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage scenarios 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., that it returns a list of markets). It meets the minimum bar given annotations but does not enhance understanding.
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?
Description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a straightforward search tool. Could include a brief note about result count or output, but conciseness is maintained.
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 a rich input schema and output schema available, the description is minimally complete. It lacks explanation of what the search returns (e.g., market titles, URLs) or how to interpret results. The presence of many sibling tools suggests more context would be helpful.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, including enums for category, status, sort_by. The description adds no new parameter-level information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the work.
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 'Search prediction markets on Polymarket' clearly states the tool's action (search) and resource (prediction markets). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like detail, history, orderbook, etc., which focus on specific market data. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., by query, filters).
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 does not mention that this is the primary search entry point or that other tools are for individual market lookups. An agent would benefit from hints about workflow integration.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations convey, so score is baseline.
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?
One concise sentence. Appropriately sized for a simple tool. No extraneous content.
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?
Tool is simple with 2 optional params, good annotations, and an output schema. Description is minimal but sufficient for the agent to understand what it does, given the structured metadata.
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 has 100% description coverage for parameters (market_id, limit). Description does not elaborate on parameter meaning or usage, but schema already does that. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states 'Get trade history on Polymarket', with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'polymarket.market.history' or 'polymarket.trading.open_orders', which might be confused.
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 vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context where other tools would be more appropriate.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat these. However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as data freshness, source, or any side effects. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning typical output fields) without sacrificing conciseness.
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 existence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain location formats or units, but the schema covers these. Overall, it is sufficient but not rich.
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%; both location and units have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 retrieves current weather for a location, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from forecast/history tools, but does not differentiate from other current weather tools like weather.airnow.current_latlng or weather.weatherapi.current beyond 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 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 (e.g., forecast, history, or other current weather tools). No explicit context or exclusions are given.
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, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., date range limits, data freshness). Adequate given annotation richness.
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?
Single sentence with no redundancy. Efficient but lacks usage context. Front-loaded with action and resource.
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?
Tool concept is simple and output schema is present. Description is complete for basic understanding but lacks guidance on when to use among many weather siblings.
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 covers 100% of parameters. Description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., clarifying location formats or date restrictions). 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?
Description clearly states verb+resource: 'Get historical weather data'. The word 'historical' distinguishes from current/forecast siblings, but no explicit differentiation is provided.
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 over siblings like weather.conditions.current or weather.conditions.forecast. Agent must infer from the name.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (e.g., rate limits, pagination, time range constraints). With annotations present, the bar is lower; description does not contradict.
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?
One succinct sentence clearly communicating the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words.
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?
With 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It omits details like historical vs real-time nature, time range limits, or what OHLCV stands for. Adequate for a basic use case but lacks 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 it retrieves candlestick (OHLCV) data for a trading pair. The verb 'Get' and resource 'candlestick data' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like orderbook or ticker, so it's not 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., orderbook, ticker). It does not mention prerequisites or trade-offs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as search matching behavior (exact vs partial), case sensitivity, or result 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, short sentence that is immediately understandable. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary 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?
Given a simple search tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate. However, it lacks details on search behavior (e.g., wildcard support, pagination) that would enhance 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 coverage is 100%, and the description merely echoes the parameter description 'Search query for coin name, symbol, or ID'. No additional meaning or constraints 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 action (Search) and resource (cryptocurrencies), with specific input types (name or symbol). It distinguishes from sibling tools like crypto.coin.detail which provide details for a specific coin.
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 such as crypto.coin.detail or crypto.token.lookup. An agent would lack context for selecting this tool over others.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context about the returned data types, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, authentication, 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 very concise—two sentences that immediately state the main function. No extraneous 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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately summarizes return data. However, it lacks context about distinguishing from sibling tools or handling invalid inputs.
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 single parameter item_id is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description merely reiterates the parameter's purpose without adding new meaning beyond 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 it retrieves metadata and asset URLs for a Library of Congress item by ID or URL, specifying asset types and metadata fields. It is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools like media.loc.search or media.loc.collections.
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 does not mention any usage constraints or when not to use 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 already declare idempotent, read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral details, but the annotation coverage makes this 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?
Single sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with action verb. No redundancy or unnecessary 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?
While the schema and annotations cover many details, the description is very brief and does not mention pagination, default units, or output structure. Output schema exists, but the description could be more informative for a tool with 11 parameters.
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 description is not required to explain parameters. It adds minimal context ('radius filter') beyond 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 finds events near geographic coordinates with a radius filter, and the name suggests geographic proximity. It distinguishes from siblings like ticketmaster.events.search or by_artist, but does not explicitly contrast them.
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 ticketmaster.events.search or by_venue. The description only states the function 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what AQI scale, data freshness), but does not contradict 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 that is front-loaded and concise. Every word is necessary, with no extraneous 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?
Given the abundance of sibling tools and the presence of an optional forecast parameter, the description is somewhat sparse. It does not explain the output format (though output schema exists) or clarify location format beyond what the schema provides. Adequate but not complete for the 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the input schema, so baseline 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?
Clearly states 'Get air quality index for a location' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like weather.airnow.current_latlng that also retrieve air quality data.
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 the many sibling air quality or weather tools (e.g., weather.airnow.current_latlng, weather.conditions.current). The description lacks context for 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is 'Free, no charge', which is not in annotations, providing marginal extra transparency. No contradictions.
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?
Description is two efficient sentences, front-loading the purpose and key features. No superfluous text.
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 (2 optional params, full schema coverage, and output schema), the description covers the main functionality. However, it omits mention of the default limit (20) and that results are sorted by the specified field, which are implied but not explicit.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (sort and limit) with clear descriptions. The description only restates the sort options without adding new semantics beyond the schema, so 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 ('Get per-tool usage breakdown') and lists the metrics returned (calls, cost, cache hits, latency, last used). It also mentions sorting options. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like account.analytics.timeseries or account.analytics.usage.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for identifying most-used/expensive tools but lacks context for when to choose it over other analytics endpoints.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating safe behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, data freshness, pagination). It does not contradict 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 concise sentence that covers the core purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately 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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the fact that an output schema exists, the description is minimally sufficient. It clearly states the input and purpose, but could mention that it returns nearest airports with distances or some ordering. However, the output schema likely covers details.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema already explains latitude, longitude, and radius. The description adds no further meaning beyond 'by geographic coordinates', which is redundant.
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 'Find', the resource 'nearest airports', and the input 'by geographic coordinates'. It also includes the source (Amadeus). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'amadeus.airports.search' or 'amadeus.airports.routes', which could cause confusion about when to use this tool.
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 are many sibling tools, and without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, the agent may select the wrong tool.
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 and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds real-time nature and output fields but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema 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 core purpose, no unnecessary words. The emoji and 'ACTION:' label are minor style choices but do not detract from conciseness.
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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's return information and source (Amadeus). It covers key attributes and is complete for a flight search 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?
All 9 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description summarizes output types but does not add new meaning to parameters beyond 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 it searches for real-time flight offers with specific output details (prices, airlines, stops, duration). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like aviasales.flights.search or sabre.flights.search, but the purpose is very clear.
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. The description lacks explicit context for choosing this Amadeus-based search over other flight search tools available among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent hints. The description adds no new behavioral context (e.g., that results are based on aggregated search data or have cached responses). While consistent, it offers no extra 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?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No filler or redundant information.
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?
The tool has output schema, so return value details are covered. The description briefly explains what the tool does but could hint that it returns a list of popular destination routes, which is minor. Still adequate for a simple retrieval 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 'Get popular flight routes from an origin' clearly states the verb (get), resource (popular flight routes), and scope (from an origin). It distinguishes from siblings like aviasales.flights.search (which handles specific searches) and aviasales.flights.nearby.
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. For instance, it does not clarify that this tool is best for discovering trending routes without specific dates, while aviasales.flights.search should be used for precise itineraries.
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 read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool uses 'OpenIBAN' as a data source and that spaces are stripped automatically (from schema), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema 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, effective sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It conveys the core functionality concisely with no wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema (not shown). The description mentions expected output fields (BIC/SWIFT, bank name, city). However, it lacks guidance on distinguishing from sibling IBAN tools, which slightly reduces 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 coverage is 100% and includes a description with format details and auto-stripping of spaces. The tool description adds no further meaning to the single parameter beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, a 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 'Validate an IBAN number and get associated bank data', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling 'iban.banking.validate' tool, which likely has similar functionality.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Despite having sibling tools like 'iban.banking.calculate' and 'iban.banking.validate', the description provides no context about when this tool is appropriate or not.
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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the data source (BCB SGS) and series number, but does not contradict annotations. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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 at one line, front-loads the key information (what, where, series, license), and contains no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place for a simple data 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 optional param, output schema present) and the fact that the schema covers the param description, the tool description provides sufficient context: data source, series, and license. It is complete for the intended 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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes last_n with details (range, default, note on daily vs monthly). The description adds no further parameter information, so baseline 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 identifies the tool as returning the Brazilian SELIC daily interest rate (series 11) from the BCB SGS system. It specifies the resource and action, though the verb 'get' or 'retrieve' is implicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like finance.bcb.selic_target or finance.bcb.cdi by noting the specific series.
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 does not mention scenarios where other BCB tools (e.g., for CDI, IPCA, or SELIC target) would be more appropriate, nor does it note prerequisites or 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds context about scope (200+ fiat and crypto) and data source (fawazahmed0 CDN) but does not contradict annotations.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose. The parenthetical data source is slightly extraneous, but overall it is concise with no wasted words.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description provides scope and source, but lacks usage context and comparative guidance, making it adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only offers a general scope statement.
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 the resource 'currency exchange rates' for over 200 fiat and crypto currencies, with optional historical dates. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'finance.currency.ecb' by specifying broader coverage and crypto inclusion.
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 does not mention when not to use it, such as switching to ECB for authoritative fiat rates or using convert for conversion.
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 (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already cover safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the schema, such as noting that the year must be within 1900-2100 (already in schema) or explaining the output format. It is adequate but not enriched.
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 very short (one sentence plus a source attribution). It is front-loaded with the key action. The 'BrasilAPI MIT' part is extraneous but not harmful. Could be slightly more efficient without the attribution.
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 presence of an output schema and thorough annotations, the description is minimally complete for a straightforward data retrieval tool. It states the core function but omits details like year range (though in schema) or holiday types. No major gaps remain.
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% (year parameter described). The description adds no new semantic value beyond restating the schema's purpose. Baseline score 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter meaning.
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: returning all Brazilian national holidays for a given year. It uses a specific verb (returns) and resource (Brazilian national holidays), and the name 'gov.brasilapi.holidays' distinguishes it from general holiday tools like 'calendar.holidays.by_country'.
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 (e.g., calendar.holidays for other countries). It does not mention any prerequisites or edge cases, leaving the agent without context for 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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds detail about the returned data fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Since annotations cover the basics, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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, dense sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and outputs. Every element adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.
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 that the tool has a single required parameter and an output schema (presumably detailed), the description covers the main data categories thoroughly. It lacks explicit mention of IPv6 support (though implied) and does not discuss limits or errors, but these are not critical for a single-lookup tool with rich annotations. Overall, it is complete enough.
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 single parameter 'ip' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add significant new information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 'Look up any IP address' and enumerates specific data categories (geolocation, security flags, ASN, company info, abuse contacts). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ip.intelligence.bulk' or 'geo.ip.geolocation', which would help an agent select the correct tool.
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 is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not indicate that this is for single IP lookups rather than bulk, nor does it compare to similar 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 readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the return fields (episode titles, podcast names, audio URLs, duration) but does not disclose rate limits, authorization needs, or other behaviors beyond what annotations imply. This is adequate but not exceptional.
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 three concise sentences that front-load the core functionality. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.
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 has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main search capabilities and return values. However, it does not mention important context like pagination (offset) or the ability to search by episode vs podcast (type parameter), which are present in the schema. An output schema exists, so return values are not required, but the description is slightly incomplete regarding the type parameter.
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 baseline is 3. The description repeats some parameter capabilities (filter by language and genre, sort by relevance or date) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. No additional insight into parameter format or edge cases is 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 it performs full-text search across a large database of podcasts and episodes and returns specific fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling podcast search tools like media.podcast.search or podcasts.listennotes.best, which would be needed for 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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative podcast-related tools on the same server. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or use cases beyond stating its functionality.
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 and idempotentHint; description adds no further behavioral context, which is acceptable but doesn't enhance transparency.
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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly more descriptive without losing brevity.
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?
With output schema present and annotations covering safety, description is adequate but lacks any mention of use cases or constraints.
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 has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions; description adds no additional meaning beyond what schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'order book' for prediction markets, distinguishing it from siblings like market detail or prices.
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 vs alternatives like polymarket.market.prices or polymarket.market.detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds little beyond annotations: 'real-time' implies freshness, but no details on response structure, pagination, or rate limits. Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and data source. No wasted words.
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?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It is adequate but could mention it returns a list of flight offers with prices for fuller 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?
All 6 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline 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 tool searches for real-time flight offers with prices between airports, specifying Sabre GDS. This distinguishes it from sibling flight search tools like Amadeus or Aviasales.
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. Given multiple flight search tools exist, the description should indicate scenarios or preferences for Sabre over others.
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 annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no behavioral context beyond confirming it is a lookup. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich 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 with no extraneous words. Every word earns its place.
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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is adequate for a simple lookup tool. However, it does not hint at the structure of the returned 'airline details', which could vary.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100% and the schema description already explains the parameter (airline code). The description repeats this information without adding new meaning 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 action ('look up') and resource ('airline details') along with the acceptable lookup keys ('IATA or ICAO code'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'amadeus.reference.airline' which serves a similar purpose.
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 (e.g., 'amadeus.reference.airline'). There is no when-not or contextual usage hint beyond the basic lookup scenario.
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 safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds that rates are 'current' and from ECB, and includes metadata details, which is useful but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication requirements. There is 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, well-structured sentence that contains all key information without redundancy. Every part is valuable, and it is front-loaded with the most important 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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the purpose, source, and output contents (rates + metadata). It could mention that rates are relative to EUR, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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% documentation coverage for the single parameter 'filter'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (optional currency code filter). Baseline is 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 it returns current ECB reference exchange rates for 30+ currencies along with metadata like symbol, decimal places, and issuing countries. It provides specific examples (USD, GBP, JPY, CHF) which improve clarity. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get' or 'list') and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'finance.currency.ecb'.
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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. An AI agent would have no direction on choosing this over other currency 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition of 'upcoming events' adds minimal behavioral context. It does not cover pagination, filter behavior, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action without excess. However, it is very brief and could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
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 presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description provides minimally sufficient context. It is missing some useful hints (e.g., date range filtering), but the schema covers it. Adequate but not thorough.
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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. 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 verb 'Get', resource 'upcoming events', and the qualifier 'at a specific venue by venue ID'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'by_artist' or 'search'.
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 (e.g., 'ticketmaster.events.search' or 'ticketmaster.events.nearby'). 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no new behavioral context (e.g., handling of ambiguous queries, rate limits). Thus it meets the baseline but provides no extra 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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately 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?
Given the tool has an output schema (context signal indicates true), annotations are rich, and the schema covers parameters entirely, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple lookup operation. However, it could briefly mention that results are coordinates or that it supports both forward/reverse, though schema already covers that.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., query, type with enum, limit with max). 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 tool geocodes a location query to coordinates, matching its name and title. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling geocode tools like address.geocodio.geocode or geo.address.geocode, which could cause ambiguity for the AI agent.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for weather-specific geocoding) or when not to use it. Context like 'weather' in the namespace is not leveraged.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds minimal behavioral context by specifying that it returns exchange info and trading pairs. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. While it could be expanded with more structure, it is appropriately brief for a simple read operation.
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?
The description sufficiently covers the core purpose for a simple informational tool with one optional parameter. Since an output schema exists, explanation of return values is unnecessary. The content is complete given the low complexity.
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 'symbol', which includes a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 'Get exchange information and available trading pairs on AsterDEX', specifying the action (get) and resource (exchange info, trading pairs). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like aster.markets.klines, aster.markets.orderbook, and aster.markets.ticker, which serve different data functions.
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 such as aster.markets.klines or aster.markets.orderbook. The description lacks context about scenarios where this tool is preferred or not, forcing 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 readOnly, destructive, idempotent, openWorld hints. Description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating it returns cheapest flights. No 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?
Single sentence, no filler, front-loaded with purpose. Highly concise.
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?
Output schema is present, annotations rich, but description misses key nuance: destination being optional for 'anywhere' searches. Adequate but incomplete.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what schema already provides.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Find', resource 'cheapest flights', and scope 'from an origin'. It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes from siblings like aviasales.flights.search or amadeus.flights.price which are broader.
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 vs alternatives such as aviasales.flights.calendar or aviasales.flights.popular. No exclusions or context 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering core behavioral traits. The description adds context about the data source and entity types but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination method, result size limits, or rate limits beyond what annotations and schema 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, resource, and scope with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and every element serves a clear 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 existence of an output schema (mentioned in context signals) and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description is adequate for a search tool. However, it lacks explanations of the query language (DQL), result formatting, or notes on open-world behavior, leaving minor 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?
All four parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no new semantic value for parameters. The mention of entity types in the description mirrors the 'type' enum, offering no additional insights.
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 'Search', the specific resource 'Diffbot Knowledge Graph', and the entity types ('products, organizations, people, and places'), making the purpose unmistakable. It includes the scope ('billions of structured entities') which further distinguishes it from generic search tools.
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 'knowledge.wikidata.search' or 'diffbot.articles.extract'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'last N observations' constraint and license (ODbL), but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, or other behavioral details 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two short phrases) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The license mention is useful but not essential. Very efficient with no wasted words.
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 optional param, read-only, with output schema), the description is fairly complete: it specifies the data source, series, and what is returned. Output schema covers return format, so no further explanation needed.
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 coverage is 100%; the schema already describes 'last_n' with default, range, and context. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so 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 tool retrieves the Brazilian CDI daily rate (series 12) from BCB SGS, specifying the source and series. It distinguishes from sibling tools like finance.bcb.selic or finance.bcb.ipca by naming 'CDI' and 'series 12'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The description is purely factual 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 declare idempotent, read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool covers all SEC-registered companies and returns specific fields, but does not discuss rate limits, pagination, or other behavioral traits that would further assist an agent.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The action verb 'Search' is front-loaded, and the description efficiently conveys purpose, input, output, and scope.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks information about rate limits, pagination, or when to use this specific search over sibling tools. It is adequate for a search tool but not fully complete.
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 for 'query' (name/ticker/keyword) and 'limit' (max results). The tool description adds context about the scope (US public companies, SEC EDGAR) but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to 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 tool searches US public companies and SEC filings by name/ticker/keyword, listing return fields (name, CIK, form type, filing date). It implicitly covers all SEC-registered companies, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'finance.edgar.filings' or 'finance.edgar.company_facts'.
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 discovery of companies or filings, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'finance.edgar.company_facts' for detailed data or 'finance.edgar.filings' for specific filings. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.
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 readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, covering safety. Description adds useful context about output fields and date filtering, but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or data freshness 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?
Single sentence packs key information: resource (company news), action (fetch), output fields, and filter capability. No redundancy, perfectly concise.
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?
With output schema present and simple structure, description is sufficient. Could mention pagination or data limits, but for a basic list tool it covers essentials.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions for each parameter. Description reinforces date filtering and adds context about the output (headline, source, etc.), enhancing understanding beyond 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?
Description clearly states it fetches latest news articles for a specific company with key fields like headline, source, summary, date, image. It distinguishes from other news tools by focusing on a single company, but doesn't explicitly compare to siblings like stocks.market.news.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., stocks.market.news, news.global.latest). The description implies use for company-specific news but fails to set boundaries.
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 readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, open world. The description adds context about optional filters but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, result structure, or rate limits. With annotations present, the description adds moderate 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?
A single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the key action and resource. No unnecessary words.
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?
Although the schema covers parameters and output schema exists, the description omits mention of pagination (size, page), sorting, or how to effectively combine filters. It is adequate for basic understanding but could be more complete.
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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described individually. The description does not add any new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Find', the resource 'events', and the primary key 'artist or performer name', with optional filters. It is distinct from sibling tools like events.by_venue or events.search.
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 such as events.search or events.nearby. The description does not specify prerequisites 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds scope details (1M+ titles, 39 languages) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with action. Could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient and no filler.
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?
Description covers the main search scope (movies, TV, people, languages) and an output schema exists for return values. Minor omission: does not clarify that multiple media types can be searched simultaneously.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage for all 4 parameters with detailed descriptions. The description adds only a high-level phrase 'by name' which is already implied by the required 'query' parameter.
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?
Description clearly states it searches movies, TV shows, and people by name across 1M+ titles in 39 languages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like details, discover, or trending.
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 tmdb.movies.discover or tmdb.movies.trending. The description does not provide context about when search is appropriate.
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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it retrieves trending content but does not elaborate on pagination, language defaults, or output structure. Value added is minimal 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence of 12 words efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise, though could potentially be expanded to include default window or 'all' type explanation.
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 functionality (trending list), the description covers the core purpose. Output schema is present, so return values are documented. Minimal but adequate for a straightforward read-only endpoint.
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?
All 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 tool retrieves trending movies, TV shows, or people with a daily or weekly window. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tmdb.movies.details or tmdb.movies.search.
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 tmdb.movies.discover or tmdb.movies.search. The description lacks context for 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about the dataset size (3,587 entries) and data source (NPS public domain), but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or authentication 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: two sentences that immediately state the core purpose, filtering options, and data source. No extraneous words—every phrase earns its place.
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 presence of an output schema and 5 optional parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and filtering but does not explain output structure, pagination behavior, or that no API key is needed. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a data retrieval 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its 5 parameters, and the description does not provide any additional parameter-level details beyond what is already in the schema. Per guidelines, baseline 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 identifies the tool as listing activities, programs, and tours at US national parks, with filtering by park or state. It distinguishes from sibling tools like alerts and campgrounds through the specific focus on 'things to do', but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 finding recreational offerings at parks, mentioning filtering options and data source. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling NPS tools (e.g., for alerts or campgrounds), leaving the distinction implied.
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 and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable reads. The description adds context about headless browser rendering and the Zyte provider, but does not disclose potential limitations like timeouts, JavaScript handling, or size 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by use cases and how it works. Every sentence adds 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 simplicity (one param), annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential points. Missing details like URL restrictions or failure scenarios but not critical for this straightforward tool.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage and the param description already states the output format. The tool description adds extra context: 'full-page' screenshot and 'headless browser renders', which go beyond the schema's description.
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 'Capture a full-page screenshot of any URL' and the output format 'base64-encoded PNG image'. It lists use cases but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'web.screenshot.capture', which could be confusing.
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 mentions use cases like 'visual verification, monitoring, or archiving', but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as 'web.screenshot.capture'. There is no when-not-to-use or comparison.
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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral insight beyond 'Get all direct flight destinations', which is consistent and 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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Efficient for a simple 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 low complexity, one required parameter, and presence of output schema and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the core function, and no further details are needed.
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 sole parameter airport_code is fully described in the schema (IATA code, min/max length, examples). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'direct flight destinations', and scope 'from an airport (Amadeus)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like amadeus.airports.nearest and amadeus.airports.search.
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 vs alternatives (e.g., amadeus.flights.search for date-specific flights). The description is purely operational without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive). The description adds only 'Gutendex MIT' source note. It claims to list 'all' books but the input schema includes a limit parameter, creating a slight inconsistency. No additional behavioral context (pagination, rate limits) is provided.
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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main functionality, but could mention pagination or default limit. Still, it is mostly complete for a simple list 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates 'search by name' and 'filter by language', which add marginal value beyond schema descriptions. It does not explain the limit parameter beyond what schema already states.
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 lists all Project Gutenberg books by a specific author, with optional language filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like books.gutendex.search and books.gutendex.popular by focusing on author-based listing.
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 purpose implies usage for author-specific queries, but no explicit guidelines on when to use this versus alternatives like search or popular are provided. No 'when-not' or alternative recommendations are given.
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 value beyond annotations by stating that no authentication is required, the service is free and open source, and specifying the return fields (date, name in local and English, type). This complements the readOnlyHint annotation and provides useful context for the agent.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and key features. Every word is relevant and there is no extraneous information.
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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the data source, return fields, and access requirements. A minor gap is the absence of mentioning the default year (2026), but that is defined in the 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?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (country_code and year) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema, so a 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 it returns public holidays by country and year, mentioning coverage of 100+ countries and types of holidays. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'calendar.holidays.next'.
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 does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds limited behavioral context (e.g., 100+ years coverage, filtering). 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?
One concise sentence front-loaded with key purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates core features.
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?
Combined with rich schema and annotations, description covers main features (countries, filters, coverage, comparison). Missing differentiation from sibling holiday tools and any potential usage limitations.
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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description repeats filter capabilities already in schema, adding no significant new meaning beyond the schema definitions.
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?
Clearly states it provides public holidays for 230+ countries with filtering options, but does not differentiate from sibling tools calendar.holidays.by_country and calendar.holidays.next on the same server.
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?
Implies usage through filtering options and coverage range, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, especially relative to sibling holiday 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about data scope ('thousands of assays') but does not disclose additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, nor does it 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with key information, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds 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 simple schema, rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and output. Minor omission: no note on invalid CID handling, but not critical for a read-only 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 coverage is 100% with a well-described parameter (cid). The description reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema description.
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 retrieves bioactivity assay results (active/inactive counts, tested targets, assay types) for a compound, specifying the source (PubChem/NCBI). It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on other chemical data aspects.
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 implies usage for biological test performance but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other PubChem tools. No exclusions or comparisons are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the page is unparseable, rate limits, or that it relies on a remote AI service). It merely repeats the action without enriching the agent's understanding of side effects 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 sentence of 18 words, immediately front-loading the core purpose. There is no redundant or extraneous information, and every phrase earns its place.
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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated by 'has output schema: true'), the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the tool's capability to auto-detect and extract. However, it could mention that the tool supports multiple page types or that it can be forced via parameters, which is implicit but not exhaustive. Overall, complete enough for a well-annotated 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, including enum descriptions. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining when to use 'mode' vs letting it auto-detect). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already 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 tool's purpose: 'Auto-detect page type (product, article, image, video) and extract structured data from any URL using AI (Diffbot)'. It specifies the verb (analyze), resource (web page), and key capability (auto-detection of page type), which distinguishes it from siblings like diffbot.articles.extract and diffbot.products.extract that require a specific mode.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the 'mode' and 'fallback' parameters imply some decision-making, there is no direct guidance (e.g., 'Use this when page type is unknown; otherwise use diffbot.articles.extract'). The context of siblings is present but not leveraged in the description.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which are consistent with a read operation. The description adds useful context about the specific fields returned (nameservers, dates, lock status, etc.). No behavioral traits are missing given the annotations cover safety.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key fields. Every word adds 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?
With an output schema present and a simple 1-parameter input, the description is sufficient. It lists the main information returned, though it could be more explicit about being specific to NameSilo-managed domains (implied by tool name and 'WHOIS contact (NameSilo)'). Still, it's complete enough for a straightforward 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 coverage is 100% and the domain parameter is well-described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.
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 retrieves detailed info for a domain and lists specific fields (nameservers, dates, lock status, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like domain.namesilo.list or whois.domain.lookup, so it's clear but not outstanding.
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 (e.g., whois.domain.lookup for generic WHOIS, domain.namesilo.list for listing domains). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description needs only to add context. It adds the list of returned financial metrics, but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness.
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-loads the action and resource, and wastes no words. Each sentence provides essential information.
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 (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It could mention that 'limit' defaults to 4 periods, but since output schema covers structure, this is 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema for 'cert' and 'limit'. It mentions quarterly periods but that relates to output, not parameter semantics.
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 it retrieves quarterly Call Report financial data for an FDIC-insured institution, specifying the exact metrics returned. This differentiates it from sibling tools like fdic.institutions.search (search institutions) and fdic.institutions.details (basic details).
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fdic.institutions.search for finding institutions first, or fdic.institutions.failures for failure data. Users must infer usage from 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 declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that it returns specific fields and is official US government data, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, data freshness, or rate limits 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 sentences long, front-loaded with the key value proposition (4,300+ institutions), and includes all essential purpose and output information without any fluff.
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?
The description covers the search capability, filters, and return fields. With an output schema present and a simple flat structure, the description is largely complete. Could mention default limit or max results, but those are in the 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?
The input schema describes all 6 parameters with clear descriptions. The description only restates some parameters (name, city, state, charter_type) without adding extra semantic detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 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 tool's purpose: searching FDIC-insured US financial institutions by various criteria. It includes the number of institutions, searchable fields, and output fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fdic.institutions.details.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fdic.institutions.details or fdic.institutions.financials. No explicit context about appropriate use cases 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 declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the data source (BCB SGS), license (ODbL), and series number, but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination. With annotations carrying most of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentence with 12 words, front-loading the key information: the series name, series number, and source. Every word earns its place.
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 existence of an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers the core purpose and series identifier. It could mention the frequency of the series (daily vs. monthly) but the parameter description partially covers that. Minor gap prevents 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'last_n' is fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about the parameter. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 identifies the tool as providing the COPOM-set SELIC target rate with the specific BCB series number 4389. It distinguishes from sibling tools like finance.bcb.selic by specifying this is the target rate set by COPOM, not the effective rate.
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 explicit usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like finance.bcb.selic or finance.bcb.cdi. The contextual clue 'policy decisions' is not sufficient.
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, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds no extra behavioral context beyond listing endpoints. No mention of auth, rate limits, or data freshness.
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 purpose, and efficiently conveys the scope of data available. No wasted words.
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?
With output schema present, description needn't detail return values. Covers all key aspects for a read-only data retrieval tool, though could mention pagination defaults or filter usage more explicitly.
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 coverage is 100% and describes each parameter well. Description only lists endpoint options in prose, which adds marginal value over the schema's enum descriptions.
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?
Clearly specifies verb 'Get' and resource 'US Treasury fiscal data', listing multiple specific datasets (interest rates, national debt, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which cover Treasury data.
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 (e.g., finance.edgar or finance.eia). Does not mention prerequisites or context where other tools might be more appropriate.
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 and idempotentHint, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context: orbit speed (28,000 km/h), orbital period (90 minutes), and update frequency (~60 seconds). This goes beyond annotations 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?
Three concise sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and returned data. The following sentences add context without wordiness.
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 retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema (implied), the description covers the returned fields, update frequency, and orbit characteristics. It provides most necessary context, though it could mention the data source or any usage limitations.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100% with one optional parameter 'units' that has a description and enum. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 tool retrieves the real-time position of the ISS and lists the specific data fields returned (latitude, longitude, altitude, velocity, daylight/eclipse visibility). It is specific enough to distinguish from general space tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'iss.space.tle' tool.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions update frequency (~60 seconds) which hints at real-time use, but does not specify when it's appropriate or provide comparisons to other ISS or position-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 declare readOnly, idempotent, etc. The description adds minimal behavioral context (public domain, source). With annotations covering safety, bar is lower; description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.
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 key information, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
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?
Has output schema, so return values are covered. Description mentions typical fields. Could hint at behavior for invalid IDs, but not necessary for a simple read tool with 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of document_id. The description reemphasizes 'by ID' but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 tool retrieves full details of a US federal regulatory document by ID, listing example fields. It distinguishes from sibling search tools implicitly (by-ID lookup vs search), but does not explicitly differentiate.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like legal.regulations.search. The usage context is implied (after obtaining an ID), but no when-not-to-use or prereq info.
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 behavior. The description adds return structure details (resolutions, photographer name, Pexels URL) and license info, exceeding 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?
Two front-loaded sentences cover purpose, filters, returns, and license with zero waste, earning a top score.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need less explanation. Description covers key details but omits pagination behavior and required parameter emphasis, which schema handles.
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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description only renames filters already in the schema, adding no new meaning beyond return info.
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 stock photos by keyword with filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like curated lists or video search, though it does not explicitly compare.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The 'free for commercial use' note is helpful but does not address usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the source (ListenBrainz) but does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination. Little additional value beyond 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?
Description is a single sentence that is highly concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and source adequately. It does not address edge cases or return format, but the output schema likely handles that. Minor gap in explaining the 'trending' aspect.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (days and limit). The description reiterates the 'days' parameter but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states it discovers recently released albums and singles from the past N days. It distinguishes this tool from sibling music tools by focusing on fresh/trending releases, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
Description implies usage for exploring new releases but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like 'music.releases.search' or 'music.recordings.search'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer 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 mark the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open world. The description adds that it returns a curated image or video with explanation, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits 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 sentence that is front-loaded with key information: the action (Get), resource (NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day), and scope (daily curated, with explanation, since 1995). No wasted words.
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, the description adequately covers the main purpose and scope. The output schema exists (not shown), so return values are implicitly documented. Minor omission: no mention of rate limits, but annotations suggest it's open.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 tool retrieves the NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day, including images or videos with expert explanations, and specifies it dates back to 1995. This differentiates it from other NASA tools like nasa.asteroids.feed or nasa.earth.epic.
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 other NASA or astronomy tools is provided. There is no mention of alternatives 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds context about the library's scope (140K+ items, missions, telescopes) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.
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, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose and key features. It is front-loaded with the action and includes relevant details without unnecessary verbosity.
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 thorough schema, annotations, and presumed output schema (has_output_schema: true), the description is fairly complete. It mentions the content types, size, and that metadata and download links are returned. Minor omission: no mention of default page size or pagination behavior, but these are likely covered by the 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?
Input schema covers all 5 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 tool searches the NASA Image and Video Library with specific details about content types and size. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other NASA tools like nasa.asteroids.feed or nasa.astronomy.apod, leaving potential ambiguity for an AI agent.
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 searching NASA media but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or specific contexts. The agent must infer the appropriate use from the tool's name and general purpose.
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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the data source (NASA DONKI) and linked events but does not disclose additional behavioral characteristics like rate limits, pagination, or return format. It adds moderate 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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action and key data fields. No extraneous words or redundant information.
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 (two optional parameters, read-only, with output schema), the description covers the essential return fields. However, it could mention that it returns a list of events or hint at potential volume, but overall it is nearly complete.
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% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning to the parameters; it simply restates the tool's purpose without elaborating on the date range parameters or their format.
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', the resource 'solar flare events', and lists key attributes (class, peak time, source region, linked CMEs and geomagnetic storms) from a specific source (NASA DONKI). This distinguishes it from related tools like space.swpc.solar_regions that focus on different solar data.
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 such as other solar or space weather tools. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, 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 declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. Description adds that it returns title, link, description, source, sentiment, keywords, and mentions data source (NewsData.io). No contradictions. Does not detail pagination or rate limits, but annotations cover safety profile.
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?
Description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the most important information (coverage and filterable fields). No wasted words.
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?
With an output schema present (not shown), the description still lists return fields. No required parameters, 7 optional ones are all documented. Covers the essential aspects of the tool. Could mention pagination or maximum article limits, but 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with well-described parameters. Description reiterates filterable fields but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?
Tool name 'news.global.latest' clearly indicates latest global news. Description states it retrieves news from 180k+ sources across 200+ countries in 70+ languages, with filtering options. Distinguishes from siblings like 'news.crypto.latest' (crypto-specific) and 'news.global.sources' (sources only).
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?
Description lists filtering capabilities but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use or which sibling tools are better for specific scenarios (e.g., crypto news).
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?
Adds source authority (NOAA) and geographic constraint (US contiguous) beyond annotations. Annotations already cover safety/idempotency; description lacks details on rate limits or response size.
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 sentences, no filler. Purpose stated first, then return fields and source. 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 simple 2-param tool with output schema available, description explains return data, source, and geographic limit. Complete for agent decision-making.
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 descriptions fully cover latitude and longitude (100% coverage). Description does not add new parameter information beyond confirming lat/lng use.
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?
Description clearly states the tool provides hourly forecasts for US locations via lat/lng, listing return fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling weather tools like noaa.weather.forecast or noaa.weather.observation.
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?
Implies usage for US contiguous locations but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. No comparison to other weather tools on the server.
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 destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as irreversibility or authentication requirements, but does not contradict annotations. Acceptable given 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?
Extremely concise (5 words, single sentence). No unnecessary information; every word is essential.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate. It could mention that the order must be open, but the idempotent hint covers repeated calls. Good enough for the complexity.
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 for the single parameter, clearly stating it is the order ID from open_orders. The description adds no additional meaning 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 action ('cancel') and resource ('open order') on a specific platform ('Polymarket'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'place_order' (creates orders) and 'open_orders' (lists orders).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parameter description hints that the order ID comes from 'open_orders response', but the main description lacks contextual usage advice 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as response format, list semantics, or the effect of the locale parameter, beyond what the schema provides. Score is baseline given annotation richness.
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, front-loaded sentence that instantly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, 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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, has output schema), the description is nearly complete. It could mention that it returns a list of categories, but the output schema likely handles that. Slight gap: no mention of the optional nature of locale or the response structure, but overall 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on the 'locale' parameter beyond what the schema states (e.g., how locale affects category names). No additional meaningful parameter context is provided.
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 the resource 'travel theme categories' with concrete examples (beach, skiing, romantic). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sabre.flights.search or sabre.reference.airline by focusing on categories rather than flight data or airline info.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like other sabre.* functions that might involve travel categories or preferences.
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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds example output (formula and weight) but doesn't disclose rate limits, data source specifics, or failure modes 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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the key purpose and input formats, with an illustrative example. No wasted words.
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 lookup tool with an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers input formats and return fields adequately. Slight lack of scope notes (e.g., compound scope) keeps it from 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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with a useful description. Description adds examples and mentions the data source (NCI CACTUS), but the schema already provides clear semantics. Baseline 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?
Title and description clearly state the tool returns molecular formula and weight from various identifiers. Examples are given, but no explicit differentiation from siblings like 'science.chem.names' or 'science.chem.resolve'.
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?
Description mentions acceptable identifiers (name, CAS, SMILES) but does not guide when to use this vs. other chemistry tools, or any prerequisites or limitations.
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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds details about return content (post text, timestamps, like/repost counts) and a limit of 100 posts. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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?
Description is concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core action. Every part is essential and there is no 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 simplicity (2 parameters, strong annotations, output schema present), the description provides sufficient context. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and its limit. Could mention pagination or if order is reverse chronological, but not critical.
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 coverage is 100% and already describes parameters well (handle, limit with defaults and max). Description adds minimal extra meaning, essentially restating the schema. Baseline 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?
Tool name and description clearly state 'Get recent posts from a Bluesky user by handle', specifying verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like social.bluesky.profile (profile info) and social.bluesky.search (post search), though not explicitly contrasting them.
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 social.bluesky.search or social.bluesky.profile. Does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, which is adequate but does not go above 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 (8 words) that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary text. It is perfectly concise.
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 that the input schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists (not shown but present), the description provides enough context for an AI to use the tool. It lacks explicit details about the meaning of 'trending' or pagination, but the schema covers most needs. Completeness is slightly above average.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline 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 tool returns 'trending and popular events sorted by relevance', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ticketmaster.events.search or ticketmaster.events.nearby by focusing on trending events.
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. With many sibling event tools, explicit usage context (e.g., 'Use this for trending events, use search for general queries') would be helpful but is absent.
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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the data source and units but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness. With annotations providing safety clarity, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 long, with the primary action stated first. Every sentence adds value: first sentence covers purpose, second adds context. No wasted words.
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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's scope, including coverage area, intervals, units, and examples. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's use, though it could note data source authority.
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 explains each parameter. The description adds example station IDs and clarifies interval options, but this does not significantly expand meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 gets tide predictions for NOAA stations, specifies the types of predictions (high/low, hourly, 6-minute), units, and coverage. It also provides example station IDs, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Users must infer usage from the description 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 already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds update frequency ('every 6 minutes') and data scope, which are useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 concise, two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and coverage. No unnecessary words.
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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, data, coverage, and update frequency. It lacks mention of error handling or rate limits but is adequate for a simple read-only 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description mentions ‘latest reading or recent history’ which aligns with the 'date' parameter options, but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. 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 title and description clearly state the tool retrieves real-time observed water levels from NOAA stations. It specifies coverage (US coastlines, rivers, Great Lakes) and implies distinction from prediction tools by using 'observed', but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'tides.noaa.predictions'.
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 (e.g., predictions). It mentions 'latest reading or recent history' but does not state when to choose this over sibling tools or other data sources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the data range (1966 to present) but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. With annotations covering safety, the description contributes minimal additional behavioral insight.
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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and return fields, and the second adds context about the date range and target users. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded, with no wasted words.
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 that the tool has a full input schema, annotations covering safety, and an output schema (context signal), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the data coverage. However, it lacks details on pagination or response size limits, but this is not critical for basic tool selection.
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 for all 3 parameters (make, model, model_year) with clear and detailed descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource 'NHTSA vehicle recalls'. It lists the return fields (campaign number, manufacturer, subject, etc.) and the date range (1966 to present). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vehicle.safety.complaints or vehicle.safety.ratings, as it focuses solely on recalls.
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 states it is 'Essential for automotive safety, insurance, and fleet management agents', which provides some context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions for use. There is no mention of when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the term 'active' but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or response details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.
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 is ideally sized for a straightforward tool, front-loading the core purpose.
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 low complexity, complete annotations, and presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the tool's function. It could mention that it returns a list of alerts, but the output schema fills this gap. Slightly incomplete but still effective.
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%, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'location' parameter. It meets the baseline for a simple, well-documented 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 'Get', the resource 'active weather alerts', and the scope 'for a location', effectively distinguishing it from siblings like weather.alerts.active (all alerts) and weather.alerts.by_state (by state).
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 does not mention when not to use it or suggest sibling tools, leaving the agent to 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) clearly convey that this is a safe, read-only operation with no side effects. The description adds 'Compare weather across multiple locations' but does not elaborate on behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradiction, but 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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is justified.
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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it could be more explicit about which weather conditions are compared (e.g., temperature, humidity). Nonetheless, the combination of name, title, and description is sufficient for an agent to understand basic usage.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters ('City name or coordinates', 'Temperature units system'). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Compare weather across multiple locations' clearly states the verb (compare), resource (weather), and scope (multiple locations). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like weather.conditions.current (single location) and weather.conditions.forecast (forecast for one location).
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 does not mention that for single-location weather data one should use weather.conditions.current or weather.conditions.forecast, nor does it specify scenarios where comparison is appropriate.
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds specific return fields (sunrise, sunset, etc.) but does not disclose default date behavior or rate limits. This is adequate given 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?
Single sentence that front-loads the key outputs and states the tool's scope ('any location and date'). Every word is necessary; no superfluous content.
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?
Tool is read-only with two well-documented parameters and an output schema (not shown but present). The description covers what the tool returns and its scope. Minor omission: no mention that date defaults to today, but overall sufficient given supporting metadata.
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?
Input schema describes both parameters (q and date) with full coverage (100%). The description does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 retrieves sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset, and moon phase data for any location and date. The verb 'get' and specific resource 'astronomy data' match the tool's title and distinguish it from siblings like current weather or forecast tools.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., weather.weatherapi.current or usno.astronomy.sun_moon). The description implies it's for specific date queries but does not mention when not to use it or compare capabilities.
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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate these. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, auth requirements) beyond listing output fields, which is already covered by the 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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose and followed by output details and use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers input, output fields, and usage context adequately. Minor omissions (e.g., port number or IP support) do not significantly hinder 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?
The schema provides a description for the 'domain' parameter with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what is 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 tool validates SSL/TLS certificates for any domain and lists specific returned fields (issuer, validity dates, etc.), making the purpose distinct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'web.ssl.check', which may have overlapping functionality.
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 mentions use cases like security audits and monitoring cert expiration, implying when to use the tool. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to avoid it or mention alternatives, such as the sibling 'web.ssl.check'.
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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds data source context (ONS/Ordnance Survey) and an example, but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.
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 and an example, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence is informative with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description lists the key data fields returned. For a simple lookup tool, the description is complete.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for the postcode parameter. The description adds an example but no extra meaning beyond the schema's description.
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 'look up' and resource 'UK postcode', lists the returned data (district, region, country, etc.), and includes an example. It differentiates from siblings like address.ukpost.nearest and address.ukpost.validate by specifying detailed reverse-lookup output.
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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., nearest or validate). The description does not mention typical use cases or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description contradicts annotations: 'Submit' implies a write/mutation, but annotations include readOnlyHint=true, indicating a read-only operation. This is a flagrant contradiction. Additionally, no disclosure of idempotency behavior (despite idempotentHint=true) or auth/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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence provides essential 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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers format support, language auto-detection, and diarization. However, the critical transparency gap (annotation contradiction) and lack of behavior details (e.g., idempotency handling) reduce 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with individual parameter descriptions. The description adds value by summarizing supported formats (MP3, WAV, etc.), auto-detection of 99 languages, and optional speaker diarization (AssemblyAI), providing context 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 action (submit audio URL), the result (returns transcript_id for status/results), and distinguishes from sibling tools audio.transcribe.result and audio.transcribe.status by focusing on the submission step. It also lists supported formats and optional diarization.
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 indicates that after submission, one should use the returned transcript_id to check status and retrieve results, implicitly guiding usage toward sibling tools. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.
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 and idempotentHint, ensuring safe read behavior. The description adds context like the data source (Open Library / Internet Archive) and returned fields (ratings, cover images, edition counts, publish year), which is helpful 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose and key features.
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?
While the description covers the basics, it could mention pagination, rate limits, or when to choose this over similar book tools (e.g., books.gutendex.search). With an output schema present, the lack of return value explanation is acceptable, but completeness is adequate rather than thorough.
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 coverage is 100% with all 8 parameters described. The description only names some parameters (title, author, subject, ISBN) but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 it searches 40M+ books by title, author, subject, or ISBN, and lists returned data like ratings and cover images. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as books.authors.details or books.editions.isbn.
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 includes no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Given many related book tools, this omission weakens the support for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations, which already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. It does not mention rate limits, pagination details, or data freshness.
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 conveys the core purpose and optional filters without any superfluous words. The title 'Popular Public-Domain Books' is also clear and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with rich annotations and a complete input schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the main use case and optional filters, and no critical information is missing.
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 parameter descriptions in the input schema are comprehensive (100% coverage), and the description merely reiterates the optional filters. No additional semantic value is provided 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'most-downloaded Project Gutenberg books', with optional filters for language and topic. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like books.gutendex.search or books.gutendex.by_author, which focus on search or author-specific lookups.
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 context for usage (listing popular books, optionally filtered), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons are mentioned.
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 information (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond listing returned data. It does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or potential limitations.
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 two sentences, efficient but somewhat list-like. It front-loads the main purpose and key data points. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating company data vs. email data) but is not overly verbose.
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 output schema (not shown but implied), the description provides adequate context. It mentions 50M+ domains indexed, giving a sense of coverage. It lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or data update frequency, but for a tool of this complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add significant new information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions email confidence scores but does not elaborate on how they are calculated or their meaning.
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 finds professional email addresses and company data for any domain, listing specific data points (organization name, industry, employee count, tech stack, social profiles, email pattern, verified contact emails with confidence scores, positions, departments, seniority levels). The name and title ('business.hunter.company', 'Company Email & Enrichment by Domain') reinforce the purpose.
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 explains what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools like email validation or other business lookups. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. Description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, data source, pagination). Given annotations, description's lack of addition is acceptable but not helpful.
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 with no extraneous words. Front-loads the action and resource. Highly concise.
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?
Output schema exists, so return format is documented elsewhere. Description covers the core function but could add context on typical usage (e.g., 'Use for charting historical trends'). Given tool complexity (4 params, 2 enums), description is minimal but meets basic needs.
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 has 100% description coverage with enums for interval and format. Description does not supplement parameter meaning (e.g., no explanation of when to use 'timeseries' vs 'ohlcv'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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?
Clear verb-resource pair: 'Get price history' for 'cryptocurrency'. Distinguishes from siblings like crypto.price.current and crypto.market.overview by specifying historical data.
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?
Description implies it's for historical price data, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., crypto.price.current for current, crypto.market.overview for market metrics). No when-not-to-use or 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 declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds value by specifying what is returned (full article text, author, source URL, publication time) and the filtering options. However, it does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or potential latency, which would enhance 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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that capture the core functionality and output. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately provides key details without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema (as indicated in context signals), the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool retrieves, the filtering options, and the returned fields. No critical information is missing for the agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description redundantly mentions the filters (language, country, category) and lists example categories, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on parameter interactions or defaults beyond what schema provides.
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 fetches latest breaking news with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('latest breaking news'). It specifies coverage (70+ countries, 18+ languages) and available filters. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'currents.news.search' or 'news.global.latest', leaving room for ambiguity.
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 current news but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no statements about when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for specific use cases (e.g., searching archived news). The context is clear but lacks directives.
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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it checks deliverability, detects disposable/abuse addresses, and mentions accuracy. 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key checks. No redundant information. Every detail earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, key checks, and accuracy, providing sufficient context for an agent to decide invocation. No missing critical 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 coverage is 100% (both params have descriptions). The description adds general context about validations performed but does not add new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. The 'ip_address' param's purpose is already in 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 it validates an email address and lists specific checks (deliverability, disposable, spam trap, etc.). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like email.transactional.send but does not explicitly differentiate from email.verification.check, which is a close 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 vs. alternatives (e.g., email.verification.check) or when not to use. The description only states what it does, not 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context about the data source (BCB SGS) and licensing (ODbL), but does not disclose rate limits, update frequency, or return format, which could be valuable for an agent.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, series number, and source. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words.
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?
With an output schema present, the description is adequate but lacks specifics like currency pair order (BRL/EUR vs EUR/BRL) and data update frequency. It provides the essential 'what' but misses some operational details.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description reinforces the parameter meaning without adding new information, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 it provides the Brazilian Real/Euro daily exchange rate from BCB SGS, differentiating it from sibling tools like finance.bcb.usd_brl for USD/BRL or finance.bcb.cdi for the CDI rate.
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 EUR/BRL daily rates but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other BCB tools or currency converters. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds license (ODbL) and parameter constraint (last N, max 500). No additional behavioral details like authentication, rate limits, or data freshness. Acceptable given 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with key info: source, series number, license, parameter hint. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability.
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?
Simple tool with one parameter and existing annotations. Description covers source, series, license, and parameter limits. Output schema exists, so no need to document return format. Adequate 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?
Schema covers 100% of the single parameter last_n, including default, max, and interpretation for monthly series. Description reiterates 'last N observations' but does not add new meaning beyond 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?
Description clearly states 'Brazilian IPCA monthly inflation rate (series 433) — last N observations from BCB SGS', specifying verb (get), resource (IPCA inflation rate), source, and series number. Distinct from siblings like SELIC, CDI, etc.
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?
No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but the tool name and description imply it's for IPCA inflation data. Given distinct sibling tools, an agent can infer usage from the domain, but no guidance on when not to use or when to prefer other 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 readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and behavior. The description adds license info (ODbL) and source (BCB SGS) but no additional behavioral traits.
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 a single sentence front-loaded with core purpose, including source and license. It is concise but could benefit from a more explicit verb like 'Retrieves'.
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 output schema, return values need no explanation. The description covers source and license but lacks explicit mention of daily frequency (implied) and official nature. Adequate for a simple 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter last_n has a clear description. The tool description does not add further parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource (Brazilian Real / US Dollar daily exchange rate series 1) and the action (retrieve last N observations from BCB SGS). It distinguishes from siblings like finance.bcb.eur_brl by specifying the currency pair.
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 use for USD/BRL exchange rate data but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds sector and public domain context, which is helpful but minimal beyond annotations. No further behavioral traits like data freshness or rate limits are disclosed.
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?
Description is a single 9-word sentence that front-loads the core information. No extraneous content.
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 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description does not mention default values (e.g., frequency default 'monthly', length default 24) or that state is optional. Returns are not explained, though output schema may cover that. Adequate but missing some useful 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description does not add additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so a 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?
Title 'US Natural Gas Prices' and description 'Natural gas residential/commercial/industrial prices by US state. EIA public domain' clearly specify the resource (natural gas prices) and scope (US state, sectors). It is distinct from sibling tools like finance.eia.electricity and finance.eia.petroleum.
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?
Description implies usage context (prices by state, public domain) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or named alternatives are 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that data is annual on 1 January, but no further behavioral details (e.g., error handling, data lag). With rich annotations, the description adds modest context.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with key information. It is compact and efficient, though could optionally include more detail. No wasted words.
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 annotations, input schema, and output schema (not shown but present), the description suffices for a simple lookup tool. It covers the essential: what, where, data source. Could mention that only one country per call, but that's in the description. Overall fairly complete.
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 already well-documented. The description reinforces that population is annual and for one country, but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema. 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 specifies the action ('annual population'), resource ('one EU country'), and data source (Eurostat dataset demo_gend). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like finance.eurostat.gdp_growth or finance.eurostat.inflation.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for EU population queries, but lacks scenario guidance or exclusion criteria. Siblings exist for other indicators, so agents must infer.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the list is complete (472 banks) and mentions data included (ISPB codes, bank numbers) and cache refresh option. This adds modest context beyond annotations but does not 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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has a complete output schema and thorough annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, exact count of banks, and key data fields. Nothing essential is missing for a simple listing 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single optional parameter 'refresh'. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 lists all 472 Brazilian banks with ISPB codes and bank numbers. The verb 'list' and specific resource 'Brazilian banks' are unambiguous, and the tool is distinct from siblings like finance.banking.iban or other gov.brasilapi tools.
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 does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.
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 the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool returns IBGE codes and includes a data license note, but does not disclose behavior like pagination hints, rate limits, or response ordering. Overall, it provides moderate added 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences that efficiently state the purpose and scope, with the licensing info appended. It is front-loaded with the core action. While very concise, the license line could be considered secondary, but overall no wasted words.
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 (optional filter, no required params, read-only, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and filter option. It does not detail error handling or ordering, but for a list tool with full annotations and a rich output schema, this is reasonably complete.
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 baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by state code and alludes to the limit parameter indirectly through the 'all 5,570' phrasing, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. Returns are adequately explained via the output 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 tool lists all 5,570 Brazilian municipalities with IBGE codes, and mentions optional filtering by state code. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling IBGE tools like gov.ibge.states or gov.ibge.cnae.
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 municipalities, with an optional filter by state code, but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like gov.ibge.regions or gov.ibge.states. No 'when not to use' guidance 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds data source (IBGE CC BY 4.0) but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the refresh parameter 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?
Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. Key facts (all states, region hierarchy, source) are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the content (all states, region hierarchy) and is complete given the context signals.
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 coverage is 100% and describes the refresh parameter. The description does not add any parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.
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 explicitly states it returns all 27 Brazilian states plus the Federal District with region hierarchy, clearly distinguishing it from sibling IBGE tools like municipalities or regions.
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 (e.g., when to use gov.ibge.states vs gov.ibge.municipalities). The description lacks context for 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 declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the data source (NASA JPL CNEOS) and fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, informative sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key return fields. Minor improvement would be to front-load the source or avoid the dash.
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 presence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description adequately summarizes the tool. It could mention filtering options (date_min, etc.) but the schema covers those.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter well-described. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, listing only return fields. Baseline 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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'reported fireball (bolide) events', and lists key data fields (energy, velocity, altitude, coordinates), differentiating it from sibling tools like jpl.asteroids.approaches.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jpl.asteroids). It implies usage for fireball events but lacks when-not conditions or references to sibling 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about returned fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. Adequate for a simple read operation.
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 action and identifier, efficiently lists returned fields. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how to identify the document. No 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?
The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for 'document_number'. The description merely echoes 'by number' without adding extra semantic value 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'Federal Register document', and the identifier 'by number'. It lists key fields returned (title, abstract, agencies, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like search and recent.
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 vs alternatives (e.g., legal.fedregister.search). Does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or provide context for decision-making.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds an example result count but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.
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?
One sentence plus an example result count. Efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more structured but is concise and clear.
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 6 optional parameters, an output schema exists (from context), and annotations cover behavioral traits, the description is mostly complete. It provides an example result count to set expectations. Could mention pagination or API source, but overall 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (query, document_type, agency, posted_after, limit, sort) are already documented. The description only repeats filter types without adding new meaning, so baseline 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'US federal regulatory documents', lists document types (rules, proposed rules, notices, presidential documents), and mentions filtering capabilities. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on Regulations.gov content, while legal.fedregister.search and legal.caselaw.search cover different document 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?
Description implies usage for federal regulations by specifying document types and mentioning Regulations.gov, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like legal.fedregister.search or legal.caselaw.search. No when-not or exclusion criteria 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 already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool is free, which is useful. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination are disclosed, but the safety profile is clear from annotations.
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 concise with two sentences. The purpose is front-loaded. The inclusion of pricing info ('Free, no charge') is somewhat extraneous but does not detract from clarity.
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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers purpose, sorting, and filtering. However, it could mention that the result is a list and that it is ranked, which is implied.
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?
Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions sort options and category filtering, which are already detailed in the schema. Baseline 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 tool retrieves a ranked list of tools by quality, with specific sort options (uptime, latency, error_rate) and filtering by category. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like platform.quality.tool, which likely provides individual tool quality.
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 discovering best tools but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as platform.quality.tool. No guidance on when not to use it 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 already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that screenshots are full resolution with dimensions, but does not contradict 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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words; it efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output characteristics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description is complete for a simple fetch tool. It covers purpose and key output details without needing to explain return values.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 gets screenshot images for a game, specifying 'full resolution URLs with dimensions,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rawg.games.details or rawg.games.search.
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 does not mention when not to use it or provide any context for selection among sibling 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 declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., returning ratings and release dates) but does not disclose pagination behavior or data freshness. With strong annotations, the description provides marginal extra value.
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?
Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. Minor redundancy with '(RAWG)' since the tool name already indicates the source, but overall 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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and return data. It could mention pagination but that is handled by the 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'games in the same series/franchise', including specific content (sequels, prequels, spin-offs) and return data (ratings, release dates). Effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like rawg.games.search or rawg.games.details.
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 when to use (to fetch series/franchise games) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use. It is adequate but lacks explicit 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 declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's addition of what data is returned (cast, crew, etc.) adds moderate value but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word is meaningful and directly serves the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema and the simple nature of the tool (retrieval by ID), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. It lists key return fields, and the output schema handles the rest.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description merely lists output attributes without adding new parameter information. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it does not reduce clarity.
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 the resource 'full movie details' with a specific list of attributes (cast, crew, trailers, ratings, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tmdb.movies.search or tmdb.movies.discover by emphasizing comprehensive details for a single movie.
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 (e.g., search, discover, similar). It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Users must infer context 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a multi-day forecast (not single point) and limited to US locations. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss 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: two short sentences that convey the essential function and source. Every word is meaningful, and the key information is front-loaded.
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?
While the tool has an output schema that likely covers return values, the description omits details like the number of forecast days, that it returns AQI values, or that it only works for US coordinates. For a tool with many siblings, more context would help selection.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters (lat, lng, distance, date). The description does not add any additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.
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 'Multi-day AQI forecast for a US lat/lng', specifying the verb (forecast), resource (AQI based on coordinates), and geographic scope (US). This distinguishes it from siblings like weather.airnow.current_latlng (current conditions) and weather.airnow.forecast_zip (forecast by zip code).
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cases where a zip code is available (suggesting forecast_zip) or when current data is needed (current_latlng). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.
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 readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds valuable context: US Government open data, unlimited usage, no authentication required. This exceeds annotation info.
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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, no filler. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, return values are covered. The description addresses source, auth, rate limits, and filter capabilities, making it complete for a list-alerts 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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It restates filter types but adds no new semantic information beyond 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 it provides active US weather alerts with examples (tornado warnings, flood watches) and filter options. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like weather.alerts.by_state or weather.alerts.get, which could cause ambiguity.
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. The description mentions filters but does not explain selection criteria or when to prefer this over sibling 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?
The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and adds no contradiction. It does not go beyond annotations to disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or data freshness, but the annotations adequately cover safety.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No extraneous words; every part is informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, the description is complete for a simple statistics tool. It specifies the resource (short URL path) and outcome (click statistics and metadata), which suffices for agent decision-making.
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 single parameter 'path' is documented in the schema with an example. The description repeats the context (Short.io path) but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is met.
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 retrieves click statistics and metadata for a Short.io short URL, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `web.url.shorten` by focusing on statistics rather than creation.
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, nor any prerequisites or exclusionary criteria. The description only explains what it does, 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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful details about return values (lat/lng, components, accuracy, data source) and data quality (USPS-standardized, Census data), which are not in annotations. No contradictions.
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 sentences cover purpose and output details efficiently. No redundant information. Front-loaded with key action and result.
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?
The description sufficiently covers input scope (US/Canada), output fields, and data source. An output schema exists but is not needed for completeness. Could mention lack of international support, but it is explicit about US/Canada only.
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 (address format and limit range). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so 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 identifies the verb 'geocode', the resource 'address', and the scope 'US/Canada'. It specifies the output (lat/lng, parsed components, accuracy type, data source) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'address.geocodio.reverse' by explicitly stating 'forward geocode'.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for forward geocoding of US/Canada addresses, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for international addresses) or reference sibling tools like 'address.postal.lookup' or 'address.geocodio.reverse'.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds 'with autocomplete' as a behavioral detail, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or response structure. 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?
A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details (keyword, IATA code, autocomplete, source). No extraneous words; every part earns its place.
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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It conveys core functionality and the autocomplete behavior. Minor room for improvement by noting that results include location details, but the output schema likely covers that.
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?
Input schema descriptions already cover the keyword and subType parameters well (100% coverage). The description adds the hint that keyword can be an IATA code, which is a slight improvement over the schema's 'name', but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.
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 searches airports and cities by keyword or IATA code with autocomplete, specifying the resource (airports and cities) and action (search). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'amadeus.airports.nearest' and 'amadeus.airports.routes'.
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 general search/autocomplete but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nearest or routes. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided, though sibling tool names offer some 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's behavioral contribution is minimal. It adds no extra details about rate limits, required permissions, or side effects beyond what the structured fields provide. 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 extremely concise at one sentence with a clear verb-object structure. It front-loads the action and resource, containing no unnecessary words or jargon.
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, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter format. It lacks details about the output structure, but since an output schema exists, that information is not required. Adequate for correct tool selection.
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 for the only parameter ('airline_code'), already specifying IATA/ICAO constraints. The description merely restates this without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline expectation but offers no 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 action ('Look up'), the resource ('airline details'), and the lookup method ('by IATA or ICAO code'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like sabre.reference.airline by specifying the Amadeus source, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sabre.reference.airline or aviasales.reference.airport. It only implies usage for airline code lookups, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the data source (MyAnimeList via Jikan) but does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like pagination or rate limits beyond what is in the 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key filters. Every word adds value with no 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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive input schema, the description covers the essential purpose and filters. It omits details like the exact meaning of 'popularity' (corresponding to the 'bypopularity' filter value) but is largely complete for selection.
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 coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions. The description adds context for some enum values (e.g., type: TV/movie/OVA; filter: airing, upcoming, popularity) but does not cover all options. Baseline is 3, and the novel contribution is marginal.
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: 'Get top-ranked anime by score', and specifies filtering options by type, status, or popularity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like anime.titles.search and anime.titles.details by focusing on rankings.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as anime.titles.search or anime.titles.details. It implies usage for top rankings but lacks comparative 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds '24-hour' time window but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or data freshness. With annotations present, the description provides minimal extra 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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Clearly front-loaded with key action and resource.
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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate. It specifies the time period (24-hour) which is critical. However, it could mention the optional omission of symbol to get all pairs (though schema does that).
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema description already explains the symbol parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?
Description clearly states verb (Get), resource (24-hour ticker statistics for trading pairs), and platform (AsterDEX). It distinguishes from siblings like aster.markets.klines (candlestick) and aster.markets.orderbook (order book) by specifying 'ticker statistics'.
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?
Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for 24-hour stats but lacks guidance on when not to use it or suggestions for related tasks.
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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about parsed fields and data source but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as result limits or ordering.
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 three sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence serves a purpose: content, source, and use case. Front-loaded with key information.
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 one-parameter input and existing output schema, the description provides essential context about what the tool returns and its source. Minor missing details about pagination or limits, but overall 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add any parameter information beyond the schema's own description of icao_code. The baseline of 3 applies.
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 lists parsed PIREPs near an airport, specifying the data fields (aircraft type, altitude, etc.). It differentiates from siblings like avwx.notams.list and aviation.metar.current by noting parsed PIREPs near an airport.
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 hazard awareness as a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like NOTAMs or METARs. No when-not or alternative tool references 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 declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds return field details (book IDs, descriptions, languages, etc.) and notes the source is public domain. No contradictions, and the description adds useful behavioral context 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?
Two concise sentences: first states action and capabilities, second lists return fields. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.
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 5 parameters (none required) and existence of output schema, the description is fairly complete. It mentions the search fields and return data. However, it does not explicitly note pagination (offset/limit) or that results include ZIP download URLs, though these are in the schema. Still adequate for most users.
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 parameters well. The description mentions searching by title, author, or genre, which adds minimal extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 (search), the resource (20K+ public-domain audiobooks), and the filters (title, author, genre). It also lists return fields. However, it does not distinguish from sibling book search tools like books.catalog.search or books.gutendex.search.
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 when to use (when needing LibriVox audiobooks) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. It lacks guidance on choosing between this and other book search tools.
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 readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc. The description adds transparency by disclosing no authentication is required and the data source (Nager.Date). This is valuable beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding usage context. Every word adds value, no 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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It could specify the number of holidays returned, but the tool is simple enough. The description is mostly complete.
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 schema covers the only parameter country_code with a clear description. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. For tools with 100% schema coverage, a baseline 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 tool returns 'next upcoming public holidays for a country', specifying the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'calendar.holidays.by_country', which might return all holidays for a given year.
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 usage context ('scheduling, availability checks, business day calculations') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no mention of data freshness 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, key elements, and context. Every word contributes 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?
The description lists the key return components and mentions the data source and use case. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail structure further. Slightly more context on scope (e.g., only GHS) would elevate it.
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 already contains a description for the cid parameter that matches the tool description. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not add new parameter meaning beyond what is in 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 tool retrieves GHS hazard classification for a compound, listing specific elements like signal words, H-codes, P-codes, and pictograms. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like properties or structure by focusing solely on hazards.
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 chemical safety assessments but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs. chemistry.pubchem.properties). No guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.
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 (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate safety. The description adds useful context: 'Returns up to 50 synonyms from a database of millions of name variants (PubChem / NCBI)', which clarifies the result limit and source. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes additional nuance (result limit, source). No redundant words.
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 single required parameter and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains input, output nature, and source. It does not discuss pagination, but for a synonyms lookup this is minor.
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 'cid'. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 action ('Get') and resource ('all known names, CAS registry numbers, trade names, and identifiers for a chemical compound by PubChem CID'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chemistry.pubchem.properties or chemistry.pubchem.bioassays.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chemistry.pubchem.search or chemistry.pubchem.properties. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use 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 indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'by category'. 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word is purposeful: verb, object, and qualifier.
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?
Description is minimal but sufficient for a simple query tool with an output schema. It doesn't detail return structure, but output schema likely covers that. For a tool with optional filtering parameters, the high-level purpose is clear enough.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (category, sort_by, limit, include_sparkline). The description does not augment the schema's parameter explanations; it merely restates the category filter. 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('cryptocurrency market data'), and the scope ('by category'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like crypto.coin.detail or crypto.price.current by specifying the aggregated market overview focus.
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 category-based market data is needed, but it does not explicitly articulate when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or excluded scenarios.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying return of full article text, Boolean operator support, and filterable fields (language, country, category, date range). 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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, second sentence adds details. No redundancy or extraneous information. Highly efficient.
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?
The description inaccurately claims a 'category' filter exists, but the input schema does not include a 'category' parameter. This misleads the agent. Additionally, pagination via 'page_size' is not mentioned. Given the output schema exists, return value explanation is not required, but the inaccuracy significantly reduces 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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds context about scope (70+ countries, 18+ languages) and Boolean support, but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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 tool searches news articles by keyword, specifies the scope (70+ countries, 18+ languages), and mentions returns full article text with Boolean and filtering capabilities. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'currents.news.latest' and 'currents.news.categories' by focusing on keyword search across many sources.
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 keyword-based news search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it only works for public repos, which is useful but not extensive. No contradictions.
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 one sentence with a bullet-like list, very concise and front-loaded with the main action. Every part adds 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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the simplicity of the tool, the description covers the essential behavior, constraints, and returned fields. Minor gap: no mention of response size or pagination, but likely not needed.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description does not add new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides.
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 ('Get full details of a GitHub repository'), specifies the resource (repository), and lists key fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings like developer.github.search and developer.github.user by focusing on a single repo's details.
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 implicitly indicates usage by requiring owner and repo, and explicitly notes 'Public repos only'. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives compared to sibling 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and safety signals. The description adds that a URL source is required and custom page size/orientation are available, but it does not disclose the output format (PDF binary or URL), synchronous nature, or file size limits. It adds some value beyond annotations but lacks depth.
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?
Three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: action + inputs, URL requirement, custom options. No filler. Front-loaded with the most critical information.
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 presence of a full input schema, annotations, and an output schema (implied), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks explicit mention of the output format (PDF binary or URL) and does not address potential limitations like file size. Slightly more context could 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?
The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description is not required to add much. It reiterates the supported formats and mentions page size/orientation, but does not enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 action (Convert to PDF) and lists many specific input formats (DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, HTML, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'document.convert.from_pdf' (PDF to other formats) and 'document.convert.web_to_pdf' (webpage to PDF) by focusing on file conversion with a URL source.
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 implicitly groups formats but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus siblings like 'document.pdf.from_html' or 'document.convert.web_to_pdf'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, though the listed formats and context of siblings offer some inference.
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 readOnly, destructive, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it lists domains with specific fields. No contradictions.
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 with no wasted words. Clearly communicates the tool's action and key return fields. 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?
With annotations and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It specifies returned fields (expiry, status) which is sufficient for a list 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?
The input schema fully describes the single parameter 'filter' with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantic value, achieving baseline 3.
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 lists all domains with expiry dates and status, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain.namesilo.check (check availability) and domain.namesilo.info (get details).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and description imply its purpose, but there's no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose for other tasks.
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, idempotentHint=true, etc. Description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., returns prices for popular TLDs, optional TLD filter). Does not contradict 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 concise sentence with examples and provider note. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action.
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-only query with output schema, the description is sufficient. Complete enough to select and invoke, though lack of explicit sibling differentiation slightly reduces 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 covers 100% of parameters with description. The tool description adds little beyond schema (mentions popular TLDs but no new param details). Baseline 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?
Description states specific action: 'Get current registration, renewal, and transfer prices for popular TLDs', listing examples (.com, .net, etc.). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like domain.namesilo.check (availability) and domain.namesilo.register (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?
Description implies usage context (when needing pricing info) but does not explicitly guide when not to use or mention alternatives. Lacks explicit differentiation from siblings, leaving it to the agent to infer.
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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the update frequency ('updated every minute (USGS)'), which provides useful context beyond annotations, but does not disclose other behavioral details like pagination or rate limits. Acceptable given 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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, parameters, and update frequency. No redundant information: every word is necessary. Ideal conciseness.
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 presence of an output schema (context indicates 'Has output schema: true'), the description appropriately does not detail return values. It covers purpose, parameters, and update frequency. One minor gap: it does not explicitly state that the feed returns a list of events, but the output schema likely handles that. Overall complete for a simple feed 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters having clear descriptions and enums. The description merely restates the parameter options (magnitude thresholds and time windows) without adding new meaning or usage patterns. Baseline score of 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 purpose: get real-time earthquake feed filtered by magnitude threshold and time window. It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'real-time earthquake feed', the key parameters, and the data source (USGS). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like earthquake.events.count and earthquake.events.search.
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 listing the parameter options (magnitude thresholds and time windows), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like earthquake.events.search or earthquake.events.count. No guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose.
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, non-destructive, idempotent, and openWorldHint, lowering the burden. The description adds useful context (100+ years of data, USGS update every minute) but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether combining lat/lon requires maxradiuskm. Overall, adds moderate 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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Search global earthquakes by...'), then lists return fields and data characteristics. Every clause provides value; no wasted words. Excellent conciseness for a tool with 12 parameters.
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 (12 optional parameters, rich filter capabilities), the description covers the main purpose, return fields, and data provenance. However, it omits that all parameters are optional, default limit of 20, and how to combine location parameters (e.g., lat/lon requires radius). With an output schema present (confirmed), completeness is adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage and detailed descriptions for all 12 parameters. The description merely mentions the categories (time, location, magnitude, depth) without adding new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already 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 uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Search global earthquakes') and lists exact return fields (magnitude, coordinates, tsunami flags, PAGER alerts, felt reports). It also provides data scope (100+ years, updated every minute by USGS), making the tool's purpose crystal clear and well-differentiated from vague alternatives.
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 detailed searches with various filters, but does not explicitly compare with siblings like earthquake.events.count or earthquake.events.feed. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows the operation is safe and read-only. The description adds context about returned fields but no additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate limits). 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 sentence that is concise (20 words), front-loaded with the core action and scope, and contains no superfluous information.
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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the essential purpose and scope, and annotations handle behavioral transparency. Lacks mention of result limit or sorting options, but these are in the schema. Overall sufficient for a straightforward search 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only provides a high-level overview.
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 searches '2.4M+ preprints' across specific disciplines (physics, math, CS, biology) and mentions key result elements (full text, authors, categories, PDF links). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like education.papers.search by specifying arXiv as the source.
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 searching academic preprints but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., education.papers.search, education.pubmed.search). No exclusion criteria or comparative guidance 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 indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds context about the data source (College Scorecard) and specific metrics, enhancing 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, informative sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and specific data points.
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, complete schema coverage, and output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and data types, though it misses usage 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters.
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 it searches US colleges and universities and lists specific data categories (admissions, tuition, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like education.colleges.details.
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 (e.g., education.colleges.details) or exclusions. The description lacks explicit 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, which inform the agent of safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about the data returned (last event, timestamps) but does not contradict annotations. It adds minimal value beyond the 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 concise sentence that includes the verb, resource, scope, and data returned. No unnecessary words, clearly 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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and what data it returns, though it could mention the event timestamps more explicitly. Slightly above baseline due to low complexity.
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 for the single parameter (email_id with example). The description references 'by ID' but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 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 specifies the action (Check delivery status), the resource (a sent email by ID), and the data returned (last event, timestamps). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like email.transactional.send which creates emails.
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 after sending an email (by referencing 'Email ID returned from send_email'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., email.transactional.send for sending) or mention exclusions (e.g., only for transactional emails).
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, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context such as the scale (300M+ instruments, 45K+ exchanges) and output fields, enhancing understanding beyond annotations alone.
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?
Three sentences: purpose, output description, and usage hint. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. 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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers core functionality, input types, and scale. It lacks details on optional exchange_code usage beyond examples, but is otherwise complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so description adds limited value. The description mentions a subset of id_type enum values and provides examples for id_value and exchange_code (e.g., US, LN, JP). This helps but does not fully compensate for the missing enum items.
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 resolves financial identifiers (ISIN, CUSIP, SEDOL, ticker) to Bloomberg FIGI, listing output fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like figi.finance.filter or figi.finance.search, which reduces specificity.
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 guidance on which id_type values to use (ID_ISIN, ID_CUSIP, ID_SEDOL, or TICKER) but does not indicate when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit exclusions or context for 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which signal this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the context of being 'official' and 'reference' rates, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as rate limits, data freshness, or response structure. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds moderate 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 sentence that is informative and to the point. It includes the verb, resource, scope, and data source without any redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.
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 retrieval tool with comprehensive annotations and a full input schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the source, scope, and purpose. The presence of an output schema (as per context signals) means return values do not need description. However, it could mention that the date parameter is for historical rates (though covered in schema) or provide a note on rate limiting, but overall it meets the needs.
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 for all three parameters, so the schema already documents the parameters adequately. The description mentions '~33 currencies' which aligns with the schema's maxItems constraint, but does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema. 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 that the tool retrieves official ECB reference exchange rates for ~33 fiat currencies. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ECB exchange rates'), and explicitly mentions the data source (Frankfurter/ECB), distinguishing it from other exchange rate tools like 'currency.exchange.latest' or 'finance.currency.rates'.
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 the tool should be used for obtaining official ECB rates, but it does not explicitly provide when to use it versus alternative exchange rate tools (e.g., 'currency.exchange.latest'). There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and title 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about the data source (EIA public domain) and a rate limit (5K req/hr), which is useful beyond the 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 concise—three short segments covering data type, frequency options, and source/rate limit. Every sentence adds value 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 has 5 optional parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential data scope, geography, and rate limits. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand usage.
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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about sectors (residential, commercial, industrial) but does not elaborate on parameter usage 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 tool retrieves retail electricity sales/price/revenue data by US state and sector, with frequency options. It distinguishes from siblings like finance.eia.natural_gas by specifying 'electricity' and the data fields.
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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., natural gas or petroleum). The name and data type are clear, but no exclusion or alternative mentions 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 declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying return fields (coordinates, date, institution, basis of record) and the scale (2.5B+ records, institutional sources). No contradiction, and the added context is relevant beyond the 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 two sentences, 41 words, front-loaded with the core action and parameters. Every sentence provides useful 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 presence of an output schema and detailed annotations, the description covers the tool's return fields, source, and filtering capabilities. It is complete for a read-only search tool, though it could mention pagination behavior (but limit param is in 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?
The input schema is fully described (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by ISO country code, which adds minimal context. No extra details on constraints or defaults beyond 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 it searches species occurrence records by taxon, country, and year, and lists return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like gbif.biodiversity.species_search (species-level) and gbif.biodiversity.occurrence_count (counts), but does not explicitly differentiate, keeping it at 4.
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 occurrence records but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like gbif.biodiversity.occurrence_count or gbif.biodiversity.species_details. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so it scores 3.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning real-time UX, which is already implied. 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds value, clearly stating the purpose and context.
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, the description covers the core functionality well. Although it doesn't detail optional parameters or response format, the output schema handles return values, making it sufficiently complete for an autocomplete 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 explicitly states 'Get autocomplete suggestions as you type an address or place name', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling geocoding tools like geo.address.geocode by specifying it's for real-time partial input suggestions.
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 use for real-time search UX but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks direct guidance on when not to use 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 already provide strong safety guarantees (readOnly, idempotent). The description adds context about the output being a polygon and the underlying service, but does not disclose limitations, rate limits, or behavior beyond that.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and key characteristics. It efficiently conveys the tool's output and source without unnecessary words.
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 schema (full parameter descriptions, output schema exists) and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could benefit from a note about mutual exclusivity of time and distance or typical use cases, but overall it provides adequate context 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, including defaults, ranges, and mutual exclusivity. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so 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 specifies the tool retrieves a reachability area (isochrone) as a polygon from a point using time or distance. It includes the data source (Geoapify/OSM) and distinguishes it from siblings like route or place search by the unique concept of isochrone.
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 travel reachability analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like routes or places. No guidance on choosing between time and distance parameters or when not to use 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 already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds the scope (700K+ documents) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination limits or result truncation. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 compact with three sentences covering scope, examples, and differentiation. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the mention of non-existent parameters slightly detracts from clarity.
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 search tool with a full output schema, the description adequately covers scope and filters. It does not explain pagination or sorting (provided in schema) but is complete enough for typical use. The missing filter parameters reduce completeness slightly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. However, the description mentions filtering by content type, organisation, and topic, which are not present as separate parameters in the schema. This introduces ambiguity and potentially misleads users, failing to add value 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 tool performs full-text search across all 700K+ GOV.UK documents, lists document types, and explicitly distinguishes it from UK FSA. This provides a specific verb (search) and resource (GOV.UK documents) and differentiates from sibling tools via context.
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 gives clear context for when to use (search across all government publications) and distinguishes from UK FSA. However, it does not explicitly guide against using it for other GOV.UK tools like 'govuk.content.fetch' or mention prerequisites, which would push it to a 5.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds context about the data types (nutrition facts, ingredients, branded products, reference foods) but does not disclose further behavioral traits 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?
Single sentence that front-loads key information: search scope, database name, and data types. No extraneous words.
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?
With an output schema present and good annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and returned data categories (nutrition facts, ingredients, branded products, reference foods). Lacks mention of pagination or rate limits but acceptable for a search 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 has 100% description coverage with clear parameter explanations. The description adds general context about returned data types but does not enhance parameter meaning significantly. Baseline score applies.
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 uses specific verb 'Search' and clarifies the resource (USDA FoodData Central) with scope (350K+ foods). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'food_details' by indicating it's a broad search tool.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'food_details' or other nutrition tools. Usage context is implied but not formally guided.
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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world hints. Description adds return fields and sorting, but no mention of pagination defaults. Adds modest 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key info (search, filters, returns, sorting). No wasted words.
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?
Covers purpose, filters, return fields, and sorting. Lacks mention of default limit or pagination, but output schema likely handles return structure. Good overall.
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?
Input schema has 100% parameter coverage. Description adds context about 1M+ models and sorting by downloads, but schema already explains parameters 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 tool searches ML models on HuggingFace Hub, specifies filters (name, task, library), and lists return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hf.hub.datasets and hf.hub.model_details.
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?
Implies usage for searching models by name/task/library, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives or when not to use 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about perpetual pairs but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or other behavioral details. Since annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single, clear sentence with no fluff. Every word is useful and the description is front-loaded with the key action and resource.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple data retrieval tool with good annotations and a schema that covers all parameters. It lacks mention that start_time and end_time are optional, but the schema makes that clear. Overall 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3.
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?
Description clearly states the tool gets candlestick (OHLCV) data for a perpetual pair on Hyperliquid. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like orderbook or account tools.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the tool's name and description make it clear it's for klines, and siblings are different (orderbook, data, etc.), so usage is implicitly understood.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the list of returned fields but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination. It does not contradict 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 sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a comprehensive list of fields without redundancy. Every word is earned.
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 presence of an output schema that documents return structure, the description's list of key fields is sufficient for an agent to decide to use this tool. It covers the main aspects of game details without missing critical 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?
The single parameter 'id' has 100% schema coverage with a clear description and example. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full game details', and the method 'by IGDB ID'. It lists specific fields included (storyline, genres, platforms, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like igdb.games.search and igdb.games.media.
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 use when you have an IGDB ID and want full details, but it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., for media only) or any prerequisites. The sibling context suggests selection is needed, but no guidance 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. However, it could mention any constraints like rate limits or that it returns media for a single game. The description adds return type details but not behavioral 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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get cover art, screenshots, and video trailers') and adds specific details about the returned data. No redundant or unnecessary words; every part earns its place.
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 has a single well-documented parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema (as indicated), the description is mostly complete. It covers the types of media returned. A minor gap is not explicitly stating that it retrieves media for one game at a time, but this is logically implied by the singular 'id' parameter.
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 single 'id' parameter is fully described in the input schema (type, description, example). The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.
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 it retrieves cover art, screenshots, and video trailers for a specific game, with explicit mention of returned data types (image URLs with dimensions and YouTube IDs). It distinctly separates from sibling tools like igdb.games.details (full info) and igdb.games.search (game discovery).
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 does not explicitly direct when to use this tool versus alternatives such as igdb.games.details, which might include media fields, or igdb.games.search which lists games. It implies usage for media retrieval but lacks explicit 'when' and 'when not' guidance.
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 destructiveHint=true (destructive operation). Description adds the constraint of max 30 URLs and 'forces CDN to fetch fresh content', but does not elaborate on required permissions or irreversible effects. The description does not contradict 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?
Extremely concise single-sentence description with an action prefix. No filler; every word adds value. Front-loaded with key information.
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 simple 3-parameter tool with output schema, description covers core behavior. Missing mention that purge_everything and files are likely mutually exclusive (not stated). Otherwise adequate for the 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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. Description summarizes options but adds no new depth. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient detail.
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?
Description clearly states the action (purge), resource (Cloudflare CDN cache), and scope (all or specific URLs up to 30). It distinguishes from sibling tools like DNS operations and zone listing by specifying cache purging.
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?
Description implies when to use (refresh cached content) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or mention alternatives. Given no sibling cache tool, usage is relatively clear but lacks 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 indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, and openWorldHint true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the fact that it searches globally via CareerJet. It doesn't disclose limitations, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, but the annotations cover the key safety aspects.
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 key information (provider, fields, scope). No unnecessary words; every element adds value. Excellent conciseness.
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 comprehensive schema and annotations, the description is largely complete. It could mention pagination (e.g., 'results are paginated') but the schema covers page and page_size. Output schema exists, so return format is documented elsewhere. Slight room for improvement, but overall 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?
Input schema provides full descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It mentions key fields (title, company, salary, location, contract type) but does not elaborate on parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states the action ('Search global job listings'), specifies the provider ('via CareerJet'), and lists relevant fields (title, company, salary, location, contract type) and scope ('across 90+ countries'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling job search tools like jobs.adzuna.search or jobs.jooble.search by naming the specific source.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for global CareerJet listings, but does not specify scenarios where this would be preferred over other job search tools available (e.g., Adzuna, Jooble, Reed). A statement like 'Use for comprehensive international listings from CareerJet' would improve clarity.
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, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the list of sections but does not disclose other behavioral traits like response structure or limits. With high annotation coverage, the description adds marginal 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 sentence, concise, front-loaded with the key action and resource, and lists the sections efficiently. No unnecessary words.
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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers input and the available sections. It could mention that the code should come from jobs.occupations.search, but that is implied by the sibling structure and the code parameter 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description repeats the section names but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, the code parameter's schema includes an example and a hint to use occupation_search.
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), resource (detailed occupation info from O*NET by SOC code), and lists the specific sections available (overview, skills, knowledge, abilities, technology skills, tasks). This distinguishes it from siblings like jobs.occupations.search which likely returns a list of occupations.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, the agent is left to infer that this is for detailed info after obtaining an SOC code. No guidance on when to omit the section parameter.
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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns over 1,000 occupations with specific fields, but does not disclose pagination behavior or other nuances beyond the 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 ('Search O*NET occupation taxonomy by keyword') and includes key output 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?
For a search tool with pagination parameters and a large dataset, the description covers the main purpose and output fields. It implicitly references pagination via parameters but could explicitly mention how start/end affect results. Output schema likely fills remaining 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond confirming keyword search and mentioning output fields (SOC codes, titles, scores) which are not input parameters. Baseline 3 applies.
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 specifies it searches the O*NET occupation taxonomy by keyword and returns SOC codes, titles, and relevance scores. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jobs.occupations.details (get details) and other job listing search tools.
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 keyword-based occupation taxonomy search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jobs.adzuna.search or jobs.listing.search. It lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
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. The description adds that the tool returns specific fields (title, company, salary, applications count, direct link) but does not contradict annotations. No further behavioral traits are disclosed.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Search UK job listings') and lists filters concisely. Every part contributes information without redundancy or fluff.
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 complexity (11 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose, filters, return fields, and source. It does not mention pagination or defaults, but these are documented in the schema. Overall, it is fairly complete for a search 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description enumerates filter categories but does not elaborate on individual parameter details.
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 'Search UK job listings' and enumerates specific filters (keywords, location, distance, salary range, contract type, full/part time). It further distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the source 'UK largest job board (Reed.co.uk)'. This provides a specific verb+resource+scope.
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 UK-specific job searches on Reed.co.uk, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jobs.adzuna.search or jobs.jooble.search. No exclusion criteria or contextual triggers 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 (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) declare safe, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds that the tool returns specific fields (company name, URL, job count, tech stack). This additional context beyond annotations is valuable. No 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 two concise sentences with no extraneous text. It front-loads the core purpose and return values. Every sentence adds 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?
The tool has annotations covering read/idempotent hints and an output schema (though not shown, indicated in context). The description mentions return fields. For a search tool with standard filters, this is nearly complete. Missing explicit mention of optional parameters or pagination behavior, but schema handles default values.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description lists filter criteria (technologies, country, min jobs) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. 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 tool finds companies by technology stack with filters like technologies, country, and minimum jobs. It specifies the return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'jobs.theirstack.search', which may overlap in functionality.
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 tech stack-based company discovery but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives in the sibling group. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the read-only nature of the search. It is consistent with annotations but does not provide further insight (e.g., rate limits, 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 concise (three short sentences) with no redundant information. All content is relevant: scope, filters, return values, and use case. It is front-loaded 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 complexity (6 parameters, rich annotations, output schema), the description adequately covers the main aspects. It might lack explicit mention of pagination or limit behavior, but the schema covers that. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to use 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented. The description summarizes the filters and return fields but adds only marginal value by listing output fields (though an output schema exists, reducing the need). Overall, it does not significantly augment 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 tool's purpose: searching 181M+ job postings with specific filters (keywords, country, remote, tech stack, recency) and lists return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the data source (TheirStack) and use case (job market intelligence, hiring analysis).
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 the tool is for job market intelligence and talent sourcing, providing context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like jobs.adzuna.search or jobs.jooble.search, nor does it mention exclusions 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's mention of 'get' is consistent. However, the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, response structure) 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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose and features without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action.
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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers the tool's purpose and key filtering/sorting capabilities. A small improvement would be mentioning the source (NASA JPL) explicitly, but it's already in 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds aggregate context (distance, velocity, size) but does not enhance individual parameter understanding. Baseline 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 tool retrieves upcoming and past asteroid close approaches with distance, velocity, and size, and can be sorted by date or distance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jpl.asteroids.sentry and nasa.asteroids.feed.
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 querying asteroid close approach data but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like Sentry risk assessments or general asteroid feed. No when-not-to-use guidance 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds that the tool returns 'hazard classification' but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or data freshness. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description adds only marginal 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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and data summary. No unnecessary words.
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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It lists the categories of data returned, which is helpful. However, it does not mention pagination, error handling, or whether multiple results are possible. Still, for a tool with strong annotations and schema, it is reasonably complete.
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% coverage with good descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Hence it provides no extra value for 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 tool looks up asteroid or comet data by name/designation, lists the types of data (orbital elements, physical parameters, discovery info, hazard classification), and names the source (NASA JPL SBDB). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jpl.asteroids.approaches and solar.system.bodies.
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 looking up specific small bodies but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like jpl.asteroids.approaches or solar.system.bodies. No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives 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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns up to 5,000 characters of text, includes metadata (author, type, date, download URL), and sources data from CourtListener.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, output, and a key constraint (character limit). No unnecessary words.
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 retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient information (return fields, character limit, source). It does not explain edge cases like truncated text, but the core use case is well-covered.
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 already fully describes the opinion_id parameter. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'by ID' and the data source, but does not provide additional format or example details.
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 the resource 'full text of a US court opinion by ID', and distinguishes from sibling tools like search and dockets by specifying retrieval via a unique ID.
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 legal.caselaw.search or legal.caselaw.dockets. The description assumes the user already has an opinion ID but doesn't explain how to obtain 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 already convey that this is a read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds a list of returned fields (puzzle ID, FEN, etc.), which is useful but not behavioral. No contradictions.
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 states the purpose and output fields. No unnecessary words.
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?
The description covers the purpose and returned fields, and annotations handle behavioral traits. With an output schema implied, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple tool. Could be improved by noting that the daily puzzle is determined by Lichess and may change daily.
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 one optional parameter with a description stating it's unused. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('today's Lichess daily puzzle'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lichess.user.profile or lichess.players.top. It also lists the returned fields, leaving no ambiguity.
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?
It is implied that this tool is for retrieving the daily puzzle, but no guidance on when not to use or alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., other lichess tools) 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 already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds limited behavioral context—it mentions returns sorted rates with price, delivery time, service type, but does not elaborate on rate limits, authentication, or processing constraints 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 two sentences with no filler, immediately stating the purpose and required inputs, then the output format and a value proposition. Every sentence earns its place.
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 rate comparison tool with an output schema, the description covers key inputs and outputs. However, it omits clarification that country parameters exist and can be changed (default US), which is relevant for international users.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description only repeats the core parameters (ZIP codes, weight, dimensions) without adding new semantic information like units or formatting nuances beyond the schema descriptions.
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 compares shipping rates across multiple carriers (USPS, UPS, FedEx, DHL) for a package, distinguishing it from sibling tools like logistics.shipengine.carriers which lists carriers, or tracking tools that handle post-shipment.
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 explains what inputs to provide (ZIP codes, weight, dimensions) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like tracking or validation tools. It implies usage for rate comparison before shipping, but lacks exclusionary guidance.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about returned data (duration, release history, artist credits) but does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details (data source, result contents). No extra words; every part contributes to 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 (3 parameters, 1 required), full schema coverage, comprehensive annotations, and an expected output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the data source (MusicBrainz) and result fields, though it doesn't explicitly mention pagination or result format, which the output schema covers.
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, including detailed descriptions for 'query' with Lucene syntax examples. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 action ('Search'), resource ('songs and recordings'), and scope ('by title or artist'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like music.artists.search by specifying the entity type. It also mentions the data returned (duration, release history, artist credits).
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 searching recordings by title/artist, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like music.artists.search or music.releases.search. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternative guidance 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the context of returning 'full release details' with specific fields but no additional behavioral traits like error conditions or rate limits. It does not contradict 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 16-word sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and key output fields. No wasted words; it is optimally concise.
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 presence of an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and primary output. It could mention potential errors for invalid IDs, but for a simple lookup, it is largely complete.
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% (the parameter 'mbid' has a description stating its format and what it returns). The tool description reinforces this, adding little extra meaning beyond the schema. Given high coverage, a baseline 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 'Get full release details by MusicBrainz ID' and lists the output fields (artist credits, labels, media formats). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'music.releases.search' (which searches) and 'music.artists.details' (which is for artists).
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 MusicBrainz ID is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like searching. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about return fields and data scale (180k+) but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or default behavior when no filters are provided.
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 front-loaded purpose. No redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds 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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers return fields. However, it does not specify behavior when no filters are applied (e.g., returns all sources) or mention pagination limits. For a directory tool, these gaps are minor.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description merely echoes the filter parameters (country, language, category) without adding new meaning, constraints, or format details beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description clearly states the tool browses available news sources with filtering by country, language, and category. It specifies return fields (source name, URL, categories, languages) and mentions scale (180,000+ sources). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like news.global.latest that return articles.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies it is for source discovery rather than article retrieval, but does not directly contrast with siblings. Filtering parameters are mentioned but no exclusion criteria.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, providing strong safety signals. The description adds that it retrieves 'balance/allowance' but does not elaborate on behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the meaning of 'allowance'. The description does not contradict 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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, the description could provide a bit more context about what 'allowance' refers to in the Polymarket context, though the schema partially covers this. Overall, it is nearly complete for a simple read-only 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'asset_type' fully described via enum values and a descriptive text. The tool description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what is already in 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 'Get balance/allowance on Polymarket' uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('balance/allowance') and platform ('Polymarket'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from other Polymarket tools that deal with market data or trading operations.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention any exclusions or alternatives. However, given its simplicity and the lack of closely related sibling tools for account balance, it is minimally adequate. No guidance is provided for when not to use 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results include 'ratings, screenshots, and store links', providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 key information. No wasted words; effectively conveys purpose and features.
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 8 parameters all documented, output schema exists, and description mentions result contents. Minor missing: no explicit pagination hint, but parameters cover it. Overall sufficient for a search 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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description summarizes filter options but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?
Clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'video games' with scope '800K+'. Lists key filters and result features, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rawg.games.details.
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?
Implies usage for general search with filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like rawg.games.details or rawg.games.screenshots. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context about industry-standard usage but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness or error handling 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, concise sentence that front-loads the key scores, and the parenthetical details are efficient. No redundant information.
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?
The description covers the return scores and geographic scope (US/Canada). With an output schema present and good parameter descriptions, the tool is adequately complete, though it could mention address validity or error 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?
Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, such as the hint to use geo.geocode which is already in the schema descriptions.
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 explicitly states the tool returns Walk Score, Transit Score, and Bike Score for US/Canada addresses, using specific verbs 'Get' and naming the resource 'Scores'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique metric scope and mentions industry-standard usage.
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 geographic limitation (US/Canada) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. No sibling differentiation is mentioned.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description does not contradict these and adds context about the data source and return fields. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination, which are not covered by 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 three sentences: purpose and parameters, return fields, and source. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value 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 output schema exists and annotations are provided, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return fields. It lacks guidance on usage limits or when to use sibling tools, but these are covered in other dimensions. Overall, it is complete for a search 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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description summarizes the parameters (company name, state, NAICS code) but adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 verb 'Search' and the resource '700K+ registered US federal contractors and grantees', specifying search criteria (company name, state, NAICS code). It differentiates from the sibling 'sam.gov.entity_detail' by focusing on search rather than detail retrieval.
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 the tool is for searching entities but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like entity_detail, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context of sibling tools hints at a search-then-detail workflow, but no explicit guidance is given.
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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that results are 'ranked by relevance (Spider.cloud)', which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose pagination, result format limitations, or rate limits 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a usage hint and ranking note. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff.
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 presence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature (web search with basic result fields), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential input and output expectations, though it could mention supported query syntax or language options.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes both parameters (query and limit) well. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 tool performs web search and returns page titles, descriptions, and URLs. It distinguishes from the sibling 'scraping.spider.scrape' by suggesting combining them for full content. The verb 'search' and resource 'web' are specific, and the ranking mention adds 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 provides a usage hint (combine with spider.scrape for full content) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other web search alternatives (e.g., search.google.web). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that no auth is needed, which is a positive behavioral trait. No contradictions, but no additional behavioral details beyond the 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 two sentences, very concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is meaningful, no filler or repetition.
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 has an output schema (context shows true) and rich annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, platform, and auth. However, it could explicitly mention that results are from the Mastodon.social instance only, which is a potential gap for users expecting cross-instance trends.
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 one parameter (limit) with a full description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter beyond what is already in 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 it returns trending hashtags with usage counts on Mastodon. It specifies the platform (Mastodon.social) and the action (track trends). This distinguishes it from similar tools like twitter.trends.worldwide or social.mastodon.trending.
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 trending Mastodon hashtags but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., social.mastodon.trending). It does include a note on authentication (no auth needed), which is helpful for 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 read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns specific fields (post text, author, etc.) and notes it's from Mastodon.social, but doesn't detail the algorithm or rate limits beyond what is provided in 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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second sentence lists outputs and practical notes (auth, cost). Ideal front-loading.
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-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, outputs, and cost. Missing default limit and algorithm details, but overall solid.
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 only parameter (limit). The description does not discuss parameters further, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 it returns trending posts on Mastodon, a specific resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'social.mastodon.tags' by specifying it returns post text, author, reblogs, etc., rather than tags.
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 gives context (Mastodon trending) and technical requirements (no auth, free), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other trending tools or alternatives like searching.
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 and destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the database size (86K+) and sorting capability, which provides some context beyond annotations but no additional behavioral traits 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 18-word sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, source, and key feature, with no redundant information.
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, high schema coverage, existing output schema, and annotations, the description adequately covers the essential information. It could mention response structure or use cases, but it is sufficient for agent selection.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the sort parameter options but does not add new meaning 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 it searches over 86K+ food ingredients with nutrition data and specifies sortable fields, distinguishing it from other Spoonacular tools like recipes.search.
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 ingredient search with nutrition sorting but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like spoonacular.recipes.search or spoonacular.recipes.by_ingredients, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that results show used/missing ingredient counts and are ranked by match, which is useful but not critical beyond the schema. No contradictions with annotations. The description does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects.
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 sentence of 15 words, immediately stating the verb and key outcome. It is front-loaded with 'Find recipes by ingredients', which directly conveys purpose. Every part is essential, with no redundancy or filler. Excellent conciseness.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated as true), the description need not explain return values. Annotations are thorough. The description covers the core functionality and ranking hint. However, in the context of a large server with many sibling tools, some explicit guidance on when to choose this over other recipe tools would enhance completeness. Currently, it is adequate for a simple search 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?
All four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description mentions 'shows used/missing ingredients count, ranked by ingredient match', which aligns with the 'ranking' parameter but adds no new information beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3; the description does not elevate 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 verb 'Find recipes using ingredients you have on hand' and the resource 'recipes'. It also specifies what it shows ('used/missing ingredients count') and how results are ranked ('ranked by ingredient match'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like spoonacular.recipes.search (which likely searches by recipe name or cuisine) and spoonacular.recipes.details (which retrieves specifics for a given recipe). The purpose is unambiguous and distinctive.
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 the user has ingredients on hand, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like spoonacular.recipes.search or spoonacular.recipes.analyze. No prohibitions or alternative tool names are given. The context of ingredients-based search is clear, but explicit guidance would improve score.
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 and destructiveHint false. The description adds the return context (position, jersey, team) and an example, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or pagination. The description does not contradict 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 two sentences: a clear purpose-and-returns statement followed by an illustrative example. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, making it highly concise.
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?
The description covers the core functionality and return fields. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to detail return values. However, it could mention that multiple results are possible given the limit parameter, but overall it is sufficient for a search 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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters described. The description adds an example for 'search' but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Score baseline 3 as per guidelines for high 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 it searches NBA players by name, specifies the returned fields (position, jersey number, current team), and includes a concrete example. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like sports.bdl.teams and sports.bdl.games.
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 player search is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternative tools (e.g., sports.basketball.games for stats). No 'when not to use' or exclusion criteria are 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 already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. The description adds minimal behavioral context, only mentioning the data source (Finnhub) in parentheses. It does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or data 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 sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It is compact and front-loaded: the core function is stated 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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and full annotations, the description suffices for a simple historical data retrieval tool. It could be improved by mentioning max data points or resolution defaults, but it is largely complete.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds a human-readable summary of resolution options ('1min to monthly') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool returns historical OHLCV candlestick data with configurable resolution, specifically for charting and technical analysis. It is distinct from sibling tools like stocks.market.quote (current price) or stocks.company.news.
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 gives a use case ('charting and technical analysis') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like stocks.market.quote for real-time data. The guidance is implicit 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 cover safety (readOnlyHint=true) and idempotency. The description adds the list of returned fields but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits, auth needs, or handling of private accounts. With strong annotations, the extra value is minimal.
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 one concise sentence followed by a list of fields. Every phrase is necessary, no wasted words, and the action 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?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description lists the main fields returned. It is complete for the tool's purpose, though it could mention error handling (e.g., user not found) or field availability for private accounts, but that's not essential given the 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?
Both parameters have clear schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds a small clarification (username without @), which marginally helps but does not significantly enhance meaning 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 it retrieves a user's Twitter profile by username, listing specific returned fields (display name, bio, counts, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools like twitter.users.followers or twitter.tweets.search.
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 explains what the tool does but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation is provided, leaving usage context implied.
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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds value by explaining the returned data structure and the scheme distinction, but does not mention any operational limits (e.g., no pagination).
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, resource, and key return fields 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 presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: listing all authorities with scheme details. It lacks information on data freshness or authentication, but these are often handled at the server level.
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 a single unused parameter fully documented. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 lists all UK local authorities in the FHRS/FHIS schemes, specifying the return fields (name, code, establishment count, scheme type) and explaining the difference between FHRS and FHIS. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ukfsa.establishments.search.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is purely operational, leaving an agent to infer that it is for listing authorities rather than specific establishments, but without clear 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (investigation number, type, description, latest activity date, NHTSA action number) and scope (active and closed investigations for US vehicles). This provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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 only two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and key input. The second sentence lists the returned fields and coverage. Every word adds value - no filler or repetition.
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 (2 params, output schema exists, good annotations), the description is largely complete. It clarifies the source (NHTSA) and the type of records (investigations). Minor omissions like result limits or sorting are not critical for this straightforward search 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 coverage is 100% - both parameters have descriptions. The description mentions 'by manufacturer and model', which aligns with the schema but adds no additional meaning, formats, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. 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 verb 'Search', the resource 'NHTSA defect investigation records', and the input parameters 'by manufacturer and model'. The title 'Defect Investigations' reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vehicle.safety.complaints by specifying investigations with types (preliminary/engineering analysis).
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vehicle.safety.complaints or vehicle.safety.recalls. It lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and description 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 already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: Chrome-based rendering, full-page capture, ad blocking, cookie banner removal, and JS-waiting. These traits go beyond annotations and help the agent understand runtime behavior.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and return value. Every phrase adds value (supports full-page, viewport, ad blocking, etc.). No fluff 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 (9 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose and key features. It does not discuss error cases or performance limits, but the output schema likely provides return structure. Overall sufficient for a read-only screenshot 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?
Input schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description redundantly mentions features corresponding to some parameters (e.g., full_page, no_ads) but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 'Take a screenshot of any URL — returns image URL' with specific rendering capabilities (Chrome-based, full-page, viewport). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'web.scrape.screenshot', which may offer similar functionality.
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 capturing website screenshots with various options, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like web.scrape.screenshot or other web tools. No 'when not to use' or contextual conditions are 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Description adds that results include TTL and raw data, providing marginal behavioral context (output richness) but does not disclose potential rate limits, caching, or service dependencies beyond the reference to WhoisXML.
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 is information-dense and front-loaded. Every word contributes to clarity 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 presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return structure. The tool is simple (2 parameters, one required). The description adequately covers the operation and record types, though it could mention that it queries a third-party service (WhoisXML) with potential implications.
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 'domain' and 'record_type' described in the schema. The description lists record types already present in the enum, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Description explicitly states 'Get DNS records for a domain' and enumerates specific record types (A, AAAA, MX, etc.), clearly differentiating from sibling WHOIS and DNS tools by emphasizing DNS record retrieval with TTL and raw data from WhoisXML.
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?
Usage context is implied through the description (DNS lookup), but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like whois.domain.lookup or whoisjson.dns.subdomains. No exclusions or prerequisites 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds that it returns recognized text and handles multiple formats. It goes beyond annotations by mentioning the backend (OCR.space), which is useful for understanding 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 a single sentence that packs essential information concisely. No fluff, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for languages). Still, it earns its place.
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?
The tool has an output schema (assumed to explain return format), and the description explicitly says 'Returns recognized text'. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is sufficiently complete for an OCR extraction 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?
All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal new semantics. It broadly mentions language support and file types, but the schema already provides details. Baseline 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 action 'Extract text' and the resource 'any image or PDF URL'. It also lists supported languages and file types, making it unambiguous. Among siblings, no other tool performs OCR, so it is distinct.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, likely because it is the only OCR tool. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites, which would be helpful.
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 and idempotentHint; description confirms read operation ('Get') without contradiction. Adds context ('full HTML content and metadata') but no extra behavioral details 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, clear, front-loaded sentence of 13 words. Efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing returned elements).
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?
Adequate for a simple read tool with output schema present. Explains what is returned and how to specify the page. Does not relate to sibling tools, but 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 coverage 100% already defines both parameters with descriptions. Description adds minimal value ('by slug') beyond 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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'full HTML content and metadata' with clear identification 'by slug (AIPush)'. Distinguishes from sibling aipush.pages.generate and aipush.pages.list.
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?
No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative mentions. Implies usage after obtaining a slug from list or generate, but lacks exclusions or context for other aipush 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?
Description indicates mutation (generates and publishes), consistent with readOnlyHint=false. No contradictions with annotations. Provides behavioral context (page structure, URL pattern) but does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation.
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?
Description is approximately 110 words across 4-5 sentences. Front-loaded with prerequisites, then output structure. Efficient but could be more concise by removing redundancy (e.g., 'AI-optimized' repeated in sibling differentiation not needed).
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 annotations (safe mutation, open world) and presence of output schema (not shown), description explains page structure and publication URL. Covers purpose, prerequisites, and optional behavior well. Lacks detail on return format or error handling, but overall robust.
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 coverage is 100%; both parameters have clear descriptions. Description adds minimal value: notes keyword targets 'specific search intent (AIPush)' but does not significantly extend schema semantics. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Generates' and resource 'AI-optimized HTML page' with specific structure (decision question, short answer with CTA, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings like aipush.pages.content and aipush.pages.list by focusing on AI assistant answer compilation.
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?
Explicit prerequisites: 'Requires mip_status='ready' and cf_hostname_status='active'' with guidance to 'check website_status first'. Mentions optional keyword parameter for search intent. Lacks explicit instructions on when not to use or alternative sibling 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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey. No contradictions.
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?
A single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool, clear annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and 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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning 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 action 'Get', the resource 'order book depth', and the specific exchange 'AsterDEX'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like klines and ticker by focusing on depth.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies use for current depth, but does not mention when not to use or differentiate from other order-book-related tools in the server.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, destructive, idempotent, and open world hints. The description adds behavioral context: update frequency and that it can return current conditions for multiple airports, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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 long, front-loading the purpose and key elements. Every word adds value with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, well-documented parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, update frequency, and parameter hints sufficiently. No gaps for the agent to use it correctly.
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 examples for icao_codes and hours. The description mentions 'one or more airports' but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 tool returns current METAR weather observations for one or more airports, listing included elements (wind, visibility, sky condition, etc.). It is specific about what it does but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aviation.taf.forecast.
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 update frequency (every 1 hour, more often in rapid changes) which helps agents decide if data is fresh enough, but it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to other aviation 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about the GLEIF source and returns, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits 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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and result, and concisely adds a use case. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and provides context for its use. No additional details are needed.
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 mentions 'by LEI code', which matches the single parameter 'lei' described in the input schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.
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?
Description clearly states the tool finds the direct parent company of a legal entity by LEI code, specifies the return fields (parent LEI, relationship type, status), and distinguishes it from siblings like business.lei.lookup and business.lei.search which serve different purposes.
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 mentions 'useful for corporate ownership chain analysis' implying usage context, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use 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 already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds data source (ACS 5-year estimates) and specific indicators, which is useful but not essential 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and a list of indicators, front-loading the action and resource. It is concise and avoids fluff, though the structure could be slightly more organized.
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-only tool with output schema present, the description covers purpose, source, and use cases. It is complete enough for agents to understand when to call it.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds geography context ('any US geography') and hints at county-level use but does not elaborate beyond what schema provides, so baseline 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 verb 'Get' and specific resources: economic indicators (median household income, population in poverty, unemployed count) for any US geography. It distinguishes from sibling tools like census.data.demographics by focusing on economic data.
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 context for use ('market sizing, real estate analysis, business location intelligence') but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Given sibling names, the context is sufficient for differentiation.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds specific property names returned but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth. No 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?
Single sentence with purpose front-loaded, followed by a dash and list of properties. No redundant words, efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with one parameter and output schema present. Description fully informs about what properties are returned, sufficient for an agent to use correctly without further elaboration.
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 provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'cid'. Description adds a usage hint ('get from compound_search results') but minimal new meaning beyond 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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'full physical and chemical properties for a compound by PubChem CID'. It lists extensive property categories, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like search or synonyms.
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?
Description implies usage when you have a CID and need properties, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like search or bioassays, nor provide 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by listing the return fields (title, sponsors, etc.), but does not elaborate on pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Given strong annotations, this is adequate.
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 efficient sentences: first states action and parameters, second lists return fields and source. No redundant content; every word earns its place.
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 output schema exists and the tool is a straightforward read lookup, the description covers core aspects. The only gap is the incomplete type specification, which is partially addressed by the schema. Overall well-rounded.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are thorough. The description correctly notes congress and number but simplifies type as 'hr/s' whereas the schema includes eight types (e.g., hjres, sjres). This is misleading and adds negative value despite 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 tool retrieves full details for a specific US bill, specifying the three parameters (congress number, type, bill number) and listing returned fields (title, sponsors, action history, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'congress.legislation.bills' (likely a list) and 'congress.legislation.members'.
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 when you have a specific bill identified, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for searching or listing) or mention alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.
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 the safety and behavior profile. The description adds context about return fields (dates, biography) and purpose but does not reveal new behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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 concise, conveying the tool's purpose and key use in a single sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action. Minor structural issue with the dash, but overall efficient and clear.
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 output schema existence and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's function. It explains what the search returns and its cross-referencing purpose. No significant gaps, though pagination or result format could be mentioned.
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 (q: artist name, limit: number of results). The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline of 3.
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 searches artists/makers in the Art Institute of Chicago collection, specifies return fields (name, dates, biography), and highlights the primary use case of finding artist IDs for cross-referencing with artwork searches. This distinguishes it from siblings like culture.artic.artwork and culture.artic.search.
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 the tool is for finding artist IDs to cross-reference with artwork search, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, lacking exclusion criteria.
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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by mentioning multilingual support (24 languages), filter capabilities (country, media type), and typical return fields (title, creator, thumbnail, provider, year). This contextualizes the tool's behavior 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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key scope ('50M+...'), then lists features (multilingual, filters), and ends with a concise summary of return fields. Ideal length for a search tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and thorough annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool searches, its scope, filtering options, and typical return fields. No obvious gaps remain.
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 parameters. The description reiterates that you can filter by country and media type, which aligns with schema, but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.
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 '50M+ cultural heritage objects across 4,000 institutions in 36 European countries', specifying the types of objects (paintings, photographs, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling cultural tools by emphasizing the broad European scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 broad European cultural heritage searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like culture.artic.search or met.art.search. No when-not-to-use guidance 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 already indicate the tool is read-only, destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds the source (ExchangeRate-API) but no new behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, capabilities, and output. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description adequately covers return values (conversion rate and result). For a simple conversion tool, all necessary context is provided without 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description mentions '160+ currencies' and 'any two currencies', which adds minor context but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters 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 tool converts between any two currencies, supports 160+ currencies, and returns conversion rate and result. This distinctively differentiates it from siblings like 'currency.exchange.latest' which likely provides rates without conversion.
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 currency conversion with an amount, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'currency.exchange.latest'. No when-not or alternative tool names are mentioned.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source (World Bank) but no further behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, caching, response format). It does not contradict 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 that front-loads the purpose ('Get global development indicators from World Bank'), includes examples, and specifies the scope (200+ countries). No unnecessary words, making it highly concise and scannable for an AI agent.
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 has an output schema, description need not explain return values. However, it omits guidance on handling large result sets via pagination (per_page parameter exists). The description is functional but lacks completeness for a tool with multiple optional parameters and potential large responses.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by listing example indicator types (GDP, population, inflation, trade, poverty) that correspond to possible indicator_id values, providing context beyond the schema's generic descriptions. However, it does not detail the date format or pagination behavior.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves global development indicators from World Bank, listing specific examples (GDP, population, inflation, trade, poverty) and coverage of 200+ countries. The verb 'Get' combined with resource 'economic data' accurately conveys the action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like finance.macro.indicator or world.country.search.
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 World Bank data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., finance.macro.indicator for general macro data). No when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings is provided, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context about output details (color-coded severity, affected country, coordinates, population impact) and lists disaster types, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but annotations cover the basic behavioral traits.
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 three sentences, each adding value: first sentence states the main purpose, second lists disaster types and output fields, third mentions severity colors and population estimates. It is front-loaded and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains what data is returned (disaster types, severity, location, population), which aligns with the parameters. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed in the description. The tool is fully covered.
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?
All three parameters are documented in the input schema with 100% coverage, including descriptions and enums. The description reiterates the disaster types and severity colors but does not add deeper semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'current and recent global disaster alerts' from UN GDACS. It lists the specific disaster types and output fields, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like gdacs.disasters.details or gdacs.disasters.history, which would help an agent choose between them.
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: for current and recent alerts. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gdacs.disasters.details for a single event or gdacs.disasters.history for historical data). The agent must infer based on the name and description 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds that the tool returns state and cities, which is not in annotations, and mentions the data source ('BrasilAPI MIT'), providing useful 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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the input format and the output type (state and cities), and the existence of an output schema handles detailed return values.
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 already provides a complete description of the 'ddd' parameter (type, range, examples). The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond '2 digits'. With 100% schema coverage, a 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 action ('Look up'), the input ('Brazilian area code (DDD, 2 digits)'), and the output ('state and cities'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings (e.g., gov.brasilapi.banks, gov.brasilapi.cep) by specifying the domain.
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 does not specify whether other Brazil-related tools (e.g., gov.brasilapi.cep) should be used for addresses or other lookups.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond listing return fields. It does not contradict 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, front-loaded sentence with a dash break. Every word is informative; no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and key data elements. No missing details for a straightforward aggregation 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions cycle, office, and state but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already describes.
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 aggregates election totals by cycle, office, and state, listing specific data points (receipts, disbursements, candidate count). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like candidates or committees by focusing on aggregate totals.
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 use for election-level aggregation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like gov.fec.candidates or gov.fec.committee_totals. No 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context (license CC BY 4.0, region names) but does not disclose caching behavior or other traits beyond the refresh parameter.
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 (16 words), front-loaded with key information, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It names the tool's output, lists the regions, includes licensing, and explains the parameter. The output schema presumably covers the return structure.
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 schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'refresh'. The description adds meaning by explaining that setting refresh to true bypasses cache and lists the specific regions returned, which goes beyond the schema description.
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 returns the 5 Brazilian geographic regions with metadata. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gov.ibge.states and gov.ibge.municipalities by specifying 'regions' and listing the specific region names.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it lacks any indication of when not to use it or which sibling tools to consider instead.
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, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the data source (NIH DSLD) and the types of data returned (ingredients, amounts, daily values, target groups). 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with a dash-enclosed list, efficient and front-loaded. Could benefit from structured formatting but is not overly verbose.
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 input schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It does not mention the output schema but is not necessary.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for dsld_id. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the source (NIH DSLD). Baseline 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?
Description clearly states 'Get full supplement label data' and lists specific components: ingredients, amounts per serving, daily values, target groups. The title and description effectively distinguish from sibling health.supplements.search, which is a search tool.
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 after obtaining a dsld_id, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like health.supplements.search. No when-not or context for exclusion 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 (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) are well-defined and cover behavioral traits. The description does not add any additional context beyond annotations, which is acceptable but does not enhance 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?
Single sentence with clear, front-loaded information. No fluff, every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (has output schema: true), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers scope (200K+ labels), database (NIH DSLD), and categories. Complete for a search 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 tool searches 200K+ dietary supplement labels in the NIH DSLD database, specifying resource types (vitamins, minerals, herbal products). It distinguishes from siblings like health.supplements.details and health.nutrition.food_search.
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 supplement label search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like health.supplements.details or health.nutrition.food_search. No when-not-to-use or alternative names 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 already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent tool. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond noting the data included (performance, TVL). 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 a single, concise sentence of 8 words that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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, annotations present, output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and returns. No gaps are apparent.
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 a clear explanation of the `vault_address` parameter. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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', the resource 'vault details', and specifies key data fields 'performance and TVL'. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like account or market data tools.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the purpose is clear from the name and description. The context implies usage for vault details, but no comparative or conditional advice 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds what fields are returned but does not disclose potential limitations like pagination or sorting behavior.
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 (18 words) yet informative, front-loaded with the action and key details. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 optional param, no required, output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and return fields. The context of Browserbase is noted.
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 single parameter 'status' has full schema coverage (100%) with enum description. The description restates filtering by status but omits the TIMED_OUT value present in the enum. No additional semantic value beyond 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 tool lists active or recent browser sessions with filtering by status, and specifies the returned fields (session IDs, regions, start times). It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings.
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 sessions by status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like infra.browser.session_status or infra.browser.session_content.
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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds file types but no additional behavioral context (e.g., behavior on invalid session_id). 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?
One sentence, front-loaded with purpose and examples. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple retrieval task; description covers what it returns (files). Output schema exists to document return structure. Adequate for the tool's complexity.
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 covers the single parameter 'session_id' with a description. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states 'Get files downloaded during a browser session' and lists specific file types (screenshots, PDFs, extracted data). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_session' and 'session_status' by focusing on content retrieval.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the name and sibling tools imply its role, the description does not contrast with alternatives like 'list_sessions' or 'session_status'.
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 safety and idempotency hints (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds context about the ESCO taxonomy and multilingual support, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination specifics or result 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information (ESCO taxonomy, occupations and skills, 27 languages). No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and thorough input schema, the description is complete enough for this simple search tool. It covers what the tool does, its domain, and language support, enabling correct agent selection.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage; each parameter (text, type, language, limit, offset) is well-described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, just mentioning '27 EU languages' which is already part of the language parameter description. Baseline 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 explicitly states it searches the ESCO taxonomy for occupations and skills, and mentions support for 27 EU languages. The verb 'search' matches the tool name, and it clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'jobs.skills.details' and other job search tools which focus on listings rather than taxonomy.
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 searching the ESCO taxonomy but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'jobs.skills.details' or 'jobs.occupations.search'. No conditions for not using it are mentioned.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. Description does not add behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, data freshness) but is consistent. No 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?
Single sentence includes tool purpose, source, and key data fields without fluff. Every word contributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is complete for a read-only query tool. It specifies data scope and source, leaving no critical 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 covers all parameters (100% coverage) with clear descriptions. The description mentions output fields but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what schema provides. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'asteroid impact risk assessments', data fields (probability, scales, size), and source (Sentry, NASA JPL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jpl.asteroids.approaches by focusing on risk specific to Sentry.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools mentioned. The description implies use for impact risk assessments, but lacks guidance on when to choose this over jpl.asteroids.approaches or jpl.bodies.lookup.
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, openWorldHint=true. The description adds licensing info (CC-BY 2.0 FR) and the number of languages, but does not contradict annotations. It lacks behavioral details beyond annotations, so it meets expectations.
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 action and result. Every sentence adds value: the first lists purpose and output, the second adds attribution. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete for a simple listing tool. It specifies the count, data fields, and licensing. No gaps noted.
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% (refresh parameter documented). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool lists all 429 supported languages on Tatoeba with ISO 639-3 codes and sentence counts. It differentiates from sibling tools like language.tatoeba.search and language.tatoeba.sentence by its specific resource (languages vs sentences).
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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. However, the name and content imply its use case (listing languages). Without explicit context, it is adequate but not strong.
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 (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate a read-only, safe operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations, such as pagination, caching, or rate limits. This is acceptable given the low risk indicated by 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 sentences with zero fluff. Every word adds value: listing carriers, their ID/codes, and the use case for rate comparison.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, output constituents, and use case. Annotations provide safety profile, so no further behavioral detail is needed.
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 coverage is 100% for the single optional 'filter' parameter. The description adds example values (e.g., 'ups', 'usps') but essentially restates the schema's description. With high coverage, the baseline is 3.
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 the resource 'connected shipping carriers' with explicit outputs (IDs and codes) and examples (USPS, UPS, FedEx, DHL). It differentiates from siblings like logistics.shipengine.rates and logistics.shipengine.validate.
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 rate comparison ('Shows which carriers are available for rate comparison') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like logistics.shipengine.rates or logistics.shipengine.validate. No direct comparison 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds value by disclosing that results are paginated and can be filtered by status, which are behavioral aspects beyond the 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 two sentences long, with the first sentence communicating the core purpose and key fields returned. The second sentence adds pagination and filter details. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no fluff, 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.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned (status summary, latest event, transit days, registration time), pagination behavior, and filter capability. It is complete and leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to misunderstand.
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 docs for page, page_size, and status (including an enum). The description mentions the filter by status and lists the enum values, but this is redundant with the schema. Thus, the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 uses specific verbs ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('all tracking numbers registered in your account') and the output content ('status summary — package status, latest event, transit days, registration time'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling logistics tools like logistics.dhl.track or logistics.tracking.status by emphasizing account-wide listing with summary.
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 explains what the tool does but does not provide any guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is given, and there is no mention of related tools or conditions. For a tool that lists all packages, usage context such as 'use this to get an overview before drilling into individual tracking status' would help but is absent.
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, openWorldHint=true, so the description's main behavioral addition is mentioning the data source (RadioBrowser) and return fields. This adds value but doesn't disclose rate limits or pagination details.
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?
Single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, filters, and data returned. It is front-loaded with the main action and scope. Minor improvement could include a second sentence for structure.
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?
With full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema (implied), the description covers the core functionality. It could mention the default sort order or limit behavior, but for a simple search tool it is 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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description only summarizes filters (name, genre, country, language) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 it searches internet radio stations with filters (name, genre, country, language) and specifies the retrieval of streaming URLs, bitrate, and codec. It distinguishes from sibling tools like music.artists.search by focusing on radio stations.
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 indicates when to use this tool (searching radio stations) versus other music tools (artists, recordings, releases). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, but the context from sibling names is sufficient.
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, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds no behavioral surprises beyond mentioning NOAA NWS source and nearest station logic, consistent 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 sentences, front-loaded with key information (what, where, what's returned), no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema (assumed present) the description adequately covers inputs, data source, and returned fields; complete for a simple observation data retrieval.
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 covers 100% with descriptions for latitude and longitude (including bounds). Description adds no additional meaning beyond 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?
Description clearly states it gets the latest weather observation from the nearest ASOS/AWOS station, listing returned fields (temperature, humidity, etc.) and specifying US contiguous only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like forecast or hourly.
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?
Implicitly clear for current conditions but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools (e.g., forecast, hourly) or alternatives on other servers.
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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little beyond stating it decodes 'any' QR code. This is adequate but not exceptional given the strong 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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant information, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with output schema present (context indicates), the description covers the input and output sufficiently. It does not need to detail return values, and no gaps are evident.
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 covers all parameters with a description for 'fileurl'. The description reiterates the parameter's purpose ('image URL') but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Hence, baseline 3.
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 ('Decode a QR code'), the input ('from an image URL'), and the output ('extracts the encoded text or URL'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'qrserver.qr.generate' by indicating the opposite operation. The mention of 'goqr.me' provides context for the service.
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 QR code image URL is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like other image processing tools or when not to use it. No comparison with siblings 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the data source and a list of returned fields, which is helpful but does not disclose any behavioral traits 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 concise with two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, and the second lists returned data. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the required input, the source, and key return fields, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely reiterates 'by UEI' without additional format or validation details.
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?
Description explicitly states 'Get full SAM.gov registration details for a federal contractor by UEI', using a specific verb and resource. It lists the returned fields and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'sam.gov.entity_search' by implying this tool is for full details given a specific UEI.
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 you have a UEI and need full registration details. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives like the sibling search tool.
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 a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the source (NCI CACTUS) but no additional behavioral traits beyond what's in the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and includes a helpful note on use cases. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand what it does and how to use it.
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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-described. The description adds value by listing supported identifier types and the nature of results, but does not substantially augment 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 tool returns all known names, synonyms, CAS numbers, and registry IDs for a chemical compound. It specifies the input type (any identifier) and distinguishes its function from sibling tools like synonyms resolvers.
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 finding alternative names and cross-references, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with related tools like chemistry.pubchem.synonyms.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the tool returns specific product details, which is useful context, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits 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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key features. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward search tool with an output schema (though not detailed here), the description is complete. It communicates the tool's scope, the data it returns, and its primary use case (price comparison). The output schema covers return values, so no further detail is needed.
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?
All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no further meaning to individual parameters. The description's mention of 'Compare prices across retailers' hints at the gl (country) parameter's purpose but does not go beyond the schema's own descriptions.
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 'Google Shopping product listings' and enumerates the returned data fields (title, price, source, rating, delivery info, product images), making the tool's purpose and resource unmistakable. It distinctively positions itself as a shopping-specific search tool among siblings like search.google.images and search.google.web.
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 use for product price comparison ('Compare prices across retailers') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative search tools on the same server. However, the name and purpose are self-explanatory for shopping-related queries.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. Description adds valuable behavioral context (e.g., reveals hosting setup, CDN usage, geographic distribution) 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence conveys core purpose and key outputs efficiently. Information is front-loaded and well-structured, though slightly verbose with parenthetical 'Threat Intelligence Platform'.
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 single parameter, full schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's capabilities. It explains what data is returned and the analytical value (hosting, CDN, geography).
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 covers the sole 'domain' parameter fully (description states what it returns). Description adds an example ('google.com') but no additional semantic value beyond the schema's explanation.
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?
Description explicitly states 'Analyze domain infrastructure' and lists specific data types (IPv4 addresses, geolocation, subnets, resource types), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like security.threatintel.malware and security.threatintel.reputation.
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?
Description implies usage for infrastructure analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., malware or reputation tools). No contextual exclusions or conditions 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 safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context about output specifics (score range 0-100, security test examples like WHOIS age, SSL validity) and the interpretation 'Higher score = safer domain', which goes beyond the 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 two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first states the action and output, second provides context and audience. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with a full input schema description, annotations, and an output schema (indicated), the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, the score range, example tests, and the use case. No gaps identified.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema is already detailed with examples and expected output. The main description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 tool retrieves a domain reputation score (0-100) with detailed security test results, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'domain reputation'. However, it does not differentiate from potentially overlapping sibling tools like security.threatintel.infrastructure or whois.domain.lookup.
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 security agents evaluating domain trustworthiness, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds sorting and field details but no additional behavioral traits beyond confirming a safe read operation. No contradictions.
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 (two sentences), front-loads key information (active regions, fields, sorting, source), and contains no redundant or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (one optional parameter with thorough schema details, and an output schema that likely documents return fields), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, data fields, sorting, source, and data freshness. No missing critical 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already thoroughly documents the 'limit' parameter. The tool description adds no new parameter meaning, so baseline 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 tool returns currently active sunspot regions with specific fields (NOAA AR number, location, area, etc.) and sorting. It distinguishes from sibling tools like space.swpc.aurora which cover different space weather phenomena.
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 sunspot data but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it reference alternatives like other solar tools. Usage context is implied but not directly 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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying data source (ACE/DSCOVR L1 monitors), temporal resolution (1-minute), and that it returns latest plus N observations. No contradictions.
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 with two sentences: first states what data is returned, second adds data source. It is front-loaded and concise, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). No unnecessary words.
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 is simple with one optional parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description adequately explains data source, what is returned, and units. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 for the 'points' parameter. The tool description adds little beyond rephrasing the return structure; it does not elaborate on parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 tool returns real-time solar wind speed, density, and temperature from ACE/DSCOVR monitors. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like space.swpc.aurora by specifying the solar wind resource and data type.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other space weather tools). The purpose is implied but not contrasted with siblings, leaving the agent to infer 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned and naming the data source (Finnhub), which is behavioral context beyond the 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 sentence that is front-loaded and concise, with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the purpose and key data points.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of comprehensive annotations, and an output schema (context signals indicate it exists), the description is sufficient. It covers all necessary aspects without needing elaboration on return values.
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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'symbol', with a description providing an example. The description mentions 'by ticker' but does not add new semantic info beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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 tool retrieves a company profile by ticker and enumerates specific fields (name, exchange, industry, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the data source (Finnhub) and the focused 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stocks.company.news or stocks.market.quote. The description lacks context for when it's appropriate or when a different sibling would be better suited.
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, idempotentHint, and other safety traits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is in the schema, such as noting sort order is from TMDB. 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?
A single 15-word sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant information, well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the extensive input schema (13 parameters all documented), good annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context to use this discovery tool effectively. No missing essential 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add new meaning or context beyond naming the filter dimensions (genre, year, etc.), which are already in 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 tool discovers movies or TV shows by genre, year, rating, language, and sort order. It uses a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('movies or TV shows'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tmdb.movies.search or tmdb.movies.trending.
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 discovery/filtering but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search, trending). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that alerts are 'real-time' and lists alert types, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not elaborate on data freshness, update frequency, or response format 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 two sentences long and front-loads the key information: what the tool does (real-time alerts) and how to use it (filter by state or park code). No extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only query tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description fully conveys the purpose and usage. It mentions the data source (NPS public domain) and alert types, making it complete for the given complexity.
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 coverage is 100% with well-described parameters. The description only mentions filtering by state or park code, which aligns with schema but adds no new meaning. Other parameters (q, limit, start) are not referenced, so the description does not enhance semantics 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 tool returns 'real-time alerts (closures, hazards, fire, flood, danger) for US national parks' and offers filtering by state or park code. This distinguishes it from siblings like travel.nps.campgrounds, travel.nps.parks, and travel.nps.things_to_do.
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 through the mention of filtering options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like travel.nps.parks or travel.nps.campgrounds. No when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative comparisons are 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 already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, and openWorldHint true. The description adds that results are sorted by distance with district info, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or coordinate bounds beyond the implicit UK scope. With strong annotation coverage, the description adds moderate 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise.
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?
The tool has complete input schema, output schema present, and rich annotations. The description adds the use case (reverse geocoding) and data source (Postcodes.io). It is complete for a simple reverse geocoding tool, though it could mention behavior for out-of-UK coordinates. Given openWorldHint, this is acceptable.
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?
All three parameters (lat, lon, limit) have full descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states the exact function: finding nearest UK postcodes to lat/lon coordinates, sorted by distance with district info. It clearly differentiates from siblings like lookup and validate by specifying 'reverse geocoding' and the data source.
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 explicitly says 'Use for reverse geocoding in the UK', which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the three sibling tools, though the purpose is sufficiently distinct.
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 (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) indicate safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds behavioral context by specifying it returns a base64 PNG data URI and is powered by Stability AI, enhancing transparency 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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys action, capabilities, and output format.
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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential: action, key features, and output format. It lacks only minor details like default parameters or model version, but is largely complete.
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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds marginal value by exemplifying style presets and mentioning aspect ratios and negative prompts, but does not provide new semantics 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 verb 'Generate images' and the resource 'text prompts using Stable Diffusion'. It lists specific capabilities (style presets, aspect ratios, negative prompts) and distinguishes this tool as an image generation tool among many other AI tools on the server.
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 text-to-image generation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor provides exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use 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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that only published pages are listed and what fields are returned (URLs, titles, publish dates). 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 a single sentence with an emoji prefix, front-loading the action and key information. Every part is essential and there is no wasted text.
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 presence of annotations and an output schema, the description provides a solid overview. It mentions the returned fields and scope (published pages). Could be enhanced with notes on pagination behavior or error handling, but satisfactory overall.
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 all three parameters (website_domain, limit, offset). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 tool lists all published AI marketing pages for a website, returning URLs, titles, and publish dates. This distinguishes it from siblings like aipush.pages.generate (which creates pages) and aipush.pages.content (which likely gets content of a specific page).
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 pages of a website but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., aipush.pages.content for a single page, aipush.pages.generate to create). No 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate it is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about active reports and hazard types but does not disclose further behavioral details 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 two sentences long, front-loads acronym explanations and hazard list, and states the usage context. Every sentence is informative and concise.
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?
The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and usage. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. Minor improvement could mention the scope (all active alerts without filtering), but it is generally 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?
The input schema has only one optional unused parameter with a clear description. With 0 meaningful parameters, the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline of 4 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 it returns active SIGMET and AIRMET reports, listing specific hazards (thunderstorms, turbulence, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling aviation tools by focusing on hazard alerts for flight safety decisions.
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 mentions the tool is for flight safety hazards and go/no-go decisions, implying its use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools like aviation.metar.current or avwx.notams.list.
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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns parsed structured fields and is critical for flight planning, which provides some behavioral context but does not significantly extend beyond what annotations already convey.
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 three sentences, front-loads key information (purpose, fields, uniqueness), and contains no redundant or extraneous content. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.
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?
With annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description explains input well and notes the tool's unique value. It does not describe output format in detail, but that is handled by the output schema. A minor gap is the slight inconsistency between description and schema regarding multiple airports.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description mentions 'one or more airports' while schema only allows a single ICAO code, causing a slight inconsistency. Overall, the description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 it returns active NOTAMs for airports, parsed into structured fields like NOTAM ID, classification, type, effective period, and summary text. It uses specific verbs ('return', 'parsed') and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming NOAA and CheckWX as alternatives that do not provide parsed NOTAMs.
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 explicitly positions the tool for flight planning and notes its uniqueness compared to NOAA and CheckWX, providing clear guidance on when to use it. It does not, however, discuss specific scenarios where alternative tools might be more appropriate or mention any 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds licensing info (MIT-licensed open data) which is mildly useful but not critical. 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 sentences: first states purpose and scope, second adds filtering, downstream usage, and licensing. No filler, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description covers filtering, return data usage, and data source. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return fields. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or default/max limit beyond what schema provides. Still complete enough.
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 coverage is 100%, so schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context that language can be an ISO 639-3 code or English name, and that limit is available. This aligns with baseline 3 as recommended.
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 the resource 'Bible translations' with scope (1000+ translations, 429+ languages). It distinguishes from siblings like bible.catalog.books and bible.text.passage by mentioning translation IDs needed for passage lookup.
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 explains filtering by language code or name and that the output is used for bible.passage. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bible.catalog.books, nor does it mention when not to use it.
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 (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) already cover safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the data source (Open Library) and listing included fields, which helps the agent understand what to expect.
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 sentence of 24 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and key data included with no unnecessary 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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) to document return values. The description covers the tool's scope and purpose. Given the existence of sibling tools, a brief pointer to edition-level tools would improve completeness, but it is not missing critical 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage and already describes the olid parameter with an example. The description does not add any additional parameter 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 verb 'get', the resource 'consolidated work metadata across all editions', and the identifier 'Open Library Work ID'. It lists specific data fields (description, subjects, authors, cover, first publish date) and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like books.authors.details and books.editions.isbn.
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 this tool is for a work-level summary ('across all editions') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No guidance on exclusions or when not to use 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 already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description's added context (scope, return fields, data source) is useful but not critical. No contradictions.
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 four concise sentences, front-loading key information (what it searches, scale, returns), with no unnecessary words.
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 search tool, it covers scope, return fields, and data license. Combined with annotations and schema, it is nearly complete, though pagination or response size limits could be mentioned.
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% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters; the description only echoes the filter-by-country aspect and does not add new semantics 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 it searches global legal entities by name, specifies the resource (2.5M+ entities across 200+ countries), and lists return fields, making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like business.lei.lookup.
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 tells when to use it (name search) and mentions filtering by country and open data access, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives like business.lei.lookup.
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 and destructiveHint: false, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds that the tool returns structured rows with column names and supports SoQL operations, which is useful but not essential given the 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 sentences efficiently convey the action, filters, supported operations, and prerequisite tool. No extraneous information; front-loaded with the most critical 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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, usage pattern, and prerequisites. It mentions that results are structured rows with column names, and the presence of an output schema handles return format details. Could mention pagination or error handling, but overall 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already thoroughly documents all 6 parameters with examples. The description adds high-level context about SoQL filters but does not provide new details beyond what the schema offers.
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 that the tool queries a specific CDC dataset using SoQL filters, listing filtering dimensions (state, year, age group, condition). It distinguishes itself from the sibling cdc.health.datasets by explicitly referencing it as a prerequisite for finding dataset IDs.
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 explicitly instructs users to use cdc.health.datasets first to find dataset IDs, providing clear prerequisite guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative query tools for different data sources.
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 safety (read-only, idempotent). Description adds valuable context: data source (ACS 5-year estimates) and timeframe. No contradictions.
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 sentences: first states purpose and outputs, second gives source and use cases. Very concise, front-loaded, no fluff.
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?
Provides enough context (fields, source, use cases) for a reasonable agent. Output schema covers return structure. Could mention FIPS usage, but schema already does.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description does not add extra parameter detail but lists output fields; baseline 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?
Specific verb 'Get' + resource 'demographic composition' with explicit fields (median age, race, etc.). Clearly distinguishes from siblings (economic, housing, population).
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?
Provides usage contexts (market research, policy analysis, neighborhood profiling) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond these, such as pagination, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 three concise sentences, front-loading the core action and metrics, then adding source and use cases. No extraneous information, every sentence adds 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 presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, source, and use cases adequately. It does not discuss geography hierarchy or variant row formats, but schema param descriptions compensate.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.
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 it retrieves housing statistics (total units, median value, rent, occupancy) for US geographies, explicitly listing the metrics and source (ACS 5-year estimates). This clarifies the toolkit's specific role, distinguishing it from sibling tools like census.data.demographics or census.data.economic.
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 notes the tool is 'essential for real estate agents, property valuations, and housing market analysis,' providing context but not explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It implies usage for housing-specific needs but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with sibling 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 indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior; description confirms creation of a permanent image URL. However, no further behavioral details (e.g., side effects of repeated calls, output format beyond URL) 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?
Two sentences: first is action-oriented with types and output; second suggests integration and tech. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence adds 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?
Covers purpose, input (via schema), and output (URL). Lacks discussion of error handling, URL permanence details, or rate limits, but given tool simplicity and annotations, it is largely complete.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. Description reinforces chart type list but omits one enum value (horizontalBar). Adds context about usage with data tools but does not significantly 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?
Clearly states it generates a chart image (PNG) from data, lists supported chart types, and describes the output as a permanent URL. Distinguishes from sibling tools as no other tool provides chart creation.
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?
Suggests combining with data tools for visualization, providing clear context for when to use. Lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, but no direct competing sibling tool exists.
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, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by enumerating the exact fields returned (CID, molecular formula, etc.) and emphasizing the database scale (100M+ compounds), which helps the agent understand the tool's scope and output 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 two sentences: the first succinctly states the action, input types, and output fields; the second establishes credibility. No filler words, front-loaded with key information.
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 search tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers input types, output fields, and database size. It lacks details on pagination or empty results, but these are standard and the output schema likely provides structure.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-described. The description does not add further detail beyond what the schema already provides for parameters; it reiterates the types of input (name, formula, SMILES) but not the limit parameter.
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 is specific: searches chemical compounds by name, formula, or SMILES string, and lists return fields. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., bioassays, hazards) by focusing on compound search and retrieval of standard chemical identifiers.
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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. The intended usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds context about the return fields and identifier conversion, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication requirements. This is adequate given the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main function, and includes an additional capability (identifier conversion) without redundancy. Every word adds 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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) and the description summarizes the return fields. Given the simple one-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description includes examples (e.g., 'caffeine', '50-78-2'). The description reinforces that the tool returns SMILES, InChI, etc., and mentions identifier conversion, which adds marginal value beyond the schema. 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 tool looks up a compound by name or identifier and returns chemical structure representations (SMILES, InChI, InChIKey, molecular formula, molecular weight). It also mentions conversion between chemical identifier formats, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like chemistry.pubchem.properties or chemistry.pubchem.search.
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 indicates when to use the tool (to look up a compound by name/identifier and get structural representations). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the purpose is clear and the sibling context gives implicit 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?
Adds value beyond annotations by specifying data source (NSIDC), frequency (monthly), default lookback (10 years), and units. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent; description complements well.
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 sentences with essential information, no extraneous words. Front-loaded with key details: data source, unit, time range.
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?
Sufficient for a simple read-only data retrieval tool with one optional parameter. Covers source, units, default, and temporal scope. Output schema likely covers return fields, so description is 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description reiterates the default behavior ('returns last 10 years by default') which is already implied by the schema. No additional parameter meaning beyond 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?
Clearly states it returns arctic sea ice extent measurements from NSIDC, with units and time range. Distinguishes from sibling climate indicators like CO2 and temperature by specifying 'Arctic sea ice extent'.
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?
Implies usage for tracking Arctic ice decline but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Context is provided but no exclusion criteria.
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 readOnly, idempotent, and open world. Description adds source, units (ppm), monthly frequency, and default range—useful context 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?
Three clear, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. Every sentence adds value: data source, format, default behavior.
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?
Covers essential info: what, source, time range, default. Output schema exists so return format is not needed. Minor gap: could clarify that 'years' goes backward from current date.
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?
Only parameter 'years' is fully documented in schema (100% coverage). Description repeats default but adds no new semantic meaning beyond 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?
Clearly states it returns atmospheric CO2 from NOAA Mauna Loa (Keeling Curve), monthly ppm since 1958. Specific verb 'returns', distinct resource, and differentiates from sibling climate indicators.
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?
Provides default behavior (10 years) but no guidance on when to use this vs other climate indicators like methane or temperature. Implied usage for CO2 data, but no explicit 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 indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld. Description adds list of returned fields but no additional behavioral context beyond annotations. Since annotations carry the safety profile, description meets minimum but doesn't add 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?
Two-sentence description: first sentence lists what it returns, second provides usage hint. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.
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?
With output schema present, description covers expected fields and usage hint. Could optionally mention any rate limits or that it only returns a single artwork, but overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and schema description already explains the ID parameter with an example. Description merely reiterates usage, adding no new semantic meaning beyond 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?
Description clearly states it returns full details for a single artwork, listing specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search and artist details by specifying 'single artwork' and referencing search result IDs.
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?
Explicitly tells agent to use artwork ID from search results, providing clear context on when to invoke. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives.
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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about returned fields (title, artist, date, etc.) and scope (120,000+ artworks, all periods/regions), complementing annotations 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 brief yet comprehensive: three sentences covering scope, types of artworks, return fields, and coverage. No filler or redundancy; each sentence adds 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 presence of an output schema and thorough parameter descriptions in the schema, the description sufficiently covers tool purpose and capabilities. It could be more complete by mentioning pagination parameters (limit, page) explicitly, but schema handles that.
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 descriptions for all three parameters (q, limit, page) are present and provide adequate meaning. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond listing return fields, which are output-related. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 explicitly states the tool searches artworks at the Art Institute of Chicago, listing specific types (paintings, sculptures, etc.) and fields returned. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like culture.artic.artist and culture.artic.artwork by focusing on search.
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 use for broad search across all periods and regions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like culture.artic.artist (artist details) or culture.artic.artwork (specific artwork). No exclusions or when-not-to-use 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about the scope (largest CS bibliography) and what data is returned (venue examples, CC0 license), which goes 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value (scope, what it returns, notable venues, licensing).
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 presence of output schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete: it covers what the tool does, what it returns, and key differentiators. Could mention pagination or ordering but not necessary for a search 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in schema. Description adds marginal value by mentioning search types (title, keyword, topic) and example queries, but does not significantly extend beyond 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 tool searches 7M+ computer science publications on DBLP by title, keyword, or topic, and lists returned fields (title, authors, venue, year, DOI). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arxiv or general paper search.
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?
Description implies usage for CS-specific bibliography but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it.
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 readOnly and idempotent. Description adds the behavioral insight that it reveals hidden supply chain depth (e.g., number of transitive deps) and attributes to Google deps.dev. No contradictions.
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 sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the main action. No waste; every sentence adds 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 an output schema exists, the description is sufficient: it states what is returned (dependencies with versions and relation types) and provides an example. Could mention prerequisites or error cases, but overall complete.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. Description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, but the output context (tree with versions and relation types) is implied.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Resolve', resource 'full transitive dependency tree', and provides a concrete example (express@5.2.1 with 67 transitive deps). Distinguishes from siblings like advisories and package info.
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?
Implies usage for dependency resolution but does not explicitly guide when to use this over siblings (e.g., advisories or package info). No when-not or alternative mentions.
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 safety (readOnly, idempotent). The description adds meaningful behavioral details such as 'full JavaScript execution', 'custom viewport width', 'lazy content loading', and 'wait delay'. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's runtime behavior.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes key features. Every word adds value, no 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 has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main functional aspects (URL input, viewport, delays, output). It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool, though it could mention potential limitations (e.g., page size, authentication) but these are 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds marginal value by mentioning features like 'lazy content loading' and 'wait delay', but these are already captured in the schema descriptions. No additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides.
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 'Render any web page URL to PDF' with specific features (JavaScript execution, viewport width, lazy loading, delay). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like document.convert.from_pdf and document.pdf.from_url by specifying the conversion direction and 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., document.pdf.from_url or document.convert.from_pdf). While it implies usage for converting live web pages, it lacks explicit guidance on context 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 already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, establishing this as a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that page order is preserved and that the result is a temporary download URL (API2PDF). This extra context helps the agent understand the output lifecycle.
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 consists of three short, front-loaded sentences: the main action, a behavior note (page order), and the output type. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or unnecessary words.
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, the presence of output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers the required information. It explains input constraints (2-20 PDFs by URL) and output (temporary download URL). Minor missing detail like URL accessibility or temporary URL duration, but overall complete for a merge 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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description reiterates that URLs are provided as input and mentions the output filename indirectly (via the purpose), but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Merge', identifies the resource 'PDF documents (provided as URLs)', and states the output 'single combined PDF' with a temporary download URL. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like document.convert.to_pdf or document.pdf.from_html, as these perform different operations (conversion/generation) rather than merging multiple PDFs.
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 merging 2-20 PDFs into one, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is clear enough for agents to infer, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.
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, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by enumerating specific return fields (citations, authors, institutions, open access) and the data source (OpenAlex), which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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, well-constructed sentence that conveys scope, source, and key features without verbosity. Every element earns its place, and the most critical 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?
Given the presence of a detailed input schema and output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and primary capabilities. It explicitly mentions the breadth of papers and return fields, though it omits explicit mention of filter parameters (e.g., concept, author, year). Nonetheless, context is largely complete.
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 each parameter clearly documented. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.
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 searches over 250M academic papers across all disciplines, specifying key return fields (citations, authors, institutions, open access status) and the data source (OpenAlex). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'education.arxiv.search' and 'education.pubmed.search'.
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 a general-purpose academic paper search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide criteria for when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.
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 read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds date and type filters which are in schema, but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema 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?
Single concise sentence front-loading key information (scope, count, filters). No wasted words.
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 output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and filters. Could mention pagination or result structure but not necessary.
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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra semantic value. 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 it searches biomedical articles on PubMed, specifying scope and filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like education.arxiv.search by naming PubMed/NCBI.
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 purpose and context are clear, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. However, the domain-specific nature provides adequate 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about real-time data, specific fields returned, and data source (IQAir AirVisual), which goes 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 two concise sentences: first states core functionality, second lists returned data. No filler words, front-loaded with the purpose.
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 two-parameter input and existence of an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the data source. It lacks mention of geographic coverage or potential limitations but is largely complete.
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% coverage with descriptions for 'lat' and 'lon'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond restating 'GPS coordinates'. Baseline score 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 tool returns real-time AQI and weather data for the nearest monitoring station to given GPS coordinates, listing specific return fields. It distinguishes from sibling 'environment.airquality.city' by specifying coordinate-based lookup.
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 coordinates are available, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'environment.airquality.city' or other weather tools. No mention of when not to use it.
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by clarifying 'no auth' and '100% free', and listing return fields (title, URL, domain, country), which goes beyond what annotations provide. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, followed by key features and cost/auth info. Every word is informative with no 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 rich input schema (5 parameters, 100% coverage) and annotations covering safety, the description adds value by stating return fields, cost, and authentication. It does not provide guidance on pagination or advanced filtering, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this. Overall, sufficient for a straightforward search 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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description vaguely mentions 'Filter by time, language, tone' but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already state (e.g., timespan, language, sort). 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 verb 'search' and the resource 'global news articles', with specific scope (65 languages, 300K+ sources). It distinguishes from siblings like news.global.latest by mentioning filtering options and the GDELT project, making the tool's unique purpose immediately apparent.
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 mentions it's free and requires no auth, which helps with adoption, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like events.global.timeline or news.global.latest. The usage context is implied but lacks exclusionary criteria.
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the data range (since 1934), record count (4,100+), and returned fields (failure date, assets, acquiring institution, estimated loss). This provides concrete behavioral context beyond the 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds 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 simplicity (two optional parameters) and the presence of both an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It could mention the default limit (10) more explicitly, but this is minor.
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 coverage is 100% with standard descriptions for 'state' and 'limit'. The tool description does not add new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'FDIC failed bank list'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fdic.institutions.details' by focusing specifically on failures, and provides concrete details (4,100+ historical failures, since 1934).
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for querying historical bank failures, but does not differentiate from alternatives like 'fdic.institutions.search' or mention limitations. The context of siblings suggests distinct purpose, but is 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 provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds source and field details but no extra behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.
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-loads the action and key filters, and every word provides value. No wasted text.
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 presence of annotations and output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention limit behavior or data freshness, but the current text is adequate for a simple query 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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond summarizing that state and year are keys, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 it retrieves NFIP claims by state and year, lists returned fields, and distinguishes from siblings like fema.disaster.assistance and fema.disaster.declarations.
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 indicates appropriate use for flood risk assessment and insurance analysis, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus its siblings or exclude misuse cases.
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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds behavioral context: it returns 'up to 20 most recent values' and specifies included fields (period dates, form type, fiscal year). This extends beyond annotations by revealing result limitations and structure. 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 extremely concise at 28 words across two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with key details (result limit, fields, value proposition). Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.
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, 2 required) and existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what data is returned and that results are limited to 20 values. It does not delve into pagination or potential API errors, but annotations cover safety. The lack of a return format description is mitigated by the 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for cik, tag, and taxonomy parameters. The description adds value by listing example tags (Revenues, NetIncomeLoss) and positioning the tool as covering 'any XBRL financial concept,' but does not substantially enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full 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 tool's purpose: providing a complete history of any XBRL financial concept for a company. It specifies the verb 'complete history,' the resource 'XBRL financial concept,' and scope 'across all SEC filings.' The title 'SEC Company Financial History' reinforces this. It also distinguishes from siblings by positioning as a 'free alternative to Bloomberg' and focusing on historical financial concept values, which differentiates it from other finance.edgar tools like company_facts or xbrl_frames.
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 historical XBRL financial data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'free alternative to Bloomberg' but does not compare with sibling tools such as finance.edgar.company_facts or finance.edgar.xbrl_frames. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer use cases without clear boundaries.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the data is 'chain-linked volumes, % change vs previous year', the dataset identifier 'tec00115', and the licensing 'CC BY 4.0'. It also clarifies the tool returns data for one country per call, which is a behavioral constraint 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential details (metric, source, license). No unnecessary words; every part is informative.
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?
The tool has an output schema (context signals), so return values are handled elsewhere. The description covers purpose, scope, and data source adequately for a simple read-only tool. Minor gap: no mention of authentication or rate limits, but annotations suggest these are not critical here.
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 describes parameters sufficiently. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the overall metric. With high coverage, a baseline 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 tool provides 'Annual real GDP growth rate' for one EU country, specifying the metric, source dataset, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like finance.eurostat.inflation and finance.eurostat.population by naming the exact economic indicator.
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 GDP growth data but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it state when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to rely on the tool name and 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the metric (annual rate of change) and dataset, which is useful but does not contradict 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 sentence plus dataset attribution, front-loading the key action and resource. No wasted words.
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 an output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, dataset, and licensing. It could mention default behavior or missing data handling, but is generally sufficient for a simple retrieval 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description reinforces the country parameter but adds no new semantic 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 it provides 'Monthly HICP annual rate of change (overall index) for one EU country', specifying the dataset and license. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like GDP growth or unemployment.
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 use for inflation data but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives like other eurostat tools. No exclusions or comparisons 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about the data source size and examples, going beyond annotations 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and key details. Every word is informative, with no 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?
With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It sufficiently covers the tool's scope (US economic data from FRED) and provides enough context for an agent to understand its purpose. Could mention time-series nature but not critical.
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% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description includes examples of series IDs, which adds marginal value beyond the schema's own descriptions. No additional parameter-specific guidance is provided.
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 ('Get US economic data'), specifies the source ('816K+ FRED series'), and lists concrete examples like GDP, CPI, unemployment. This distinguishes it from other finance tools by focusing on US macro indicators.
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 examples of when to use the tool (e.g., for GDP, CPI data) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The 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 readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, so the safety and idempotence are clear. The description adds no extra behavioral nuances beyond confirming it's a count operation and attributing data source (GBIF). With annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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: first states the action and parameters, second states use cases and source. No redundant words, front-loaded with core purpose, every sentence adds 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 simplicity (single count query with two parameters), the description covers purpose, parameters, use cases, and data source. The presence of an output schema (not shown) likely details return format, so the description is adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke.
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 for both parameters. The description adds only 'optionally filtered by country', which does not enhance the schema's existing description of the country parameter. Thus, no significant added value beyond schema, baseline 3.
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 'Get total occurrence count for a species' with specific verb and resource. It mentions optional country filtering and lists concrete use cases (range size estimation, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'gbif.biodiversity.occurrences' that return actual records.
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 explicitly mentions three use cases (range size estimation, data density assessment, conservation status analysis) that signal when to use this tool. While it doesn't directly contrast with alternatives, the use cases imply it's for aggregate counts rather than detailed records.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about the data scope (2000 onwards, past disasters) but does not introduce additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, response pagination) 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?
Two sentences: the first states the core action and temporal scope, the second lists filters and return types. No superfluous words, essential information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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 that an output schema exists (context indicates 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail return structure. It adequately covers required inputs, data source, and purpose. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention that results are a list, but 'Returns past disasters' implies a list, making it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description in the schema. The description lists the filter categories (date range, event type, country, alert level) but adds no semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 identifies the tool as querying the GDACS historical disaster archive from 2000 onwards, listing filters (date range, event type, country, alert level) and return types (earthquakes, cyclones, floods, volcanoes). It distinctly implies a historical focus, differentiating it from sibling tools like gdacs.disasters.alerts (current alerts) and gdacs.disasters.details (specific disaster details).
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 specifies the tool is for historical analysis ('from 2000 onwards') and lists available filters, providing clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., not for live alerts) or name alternative tools, though the historical nature implies differentiation from alert and detail endpoints.
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, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by naming the data source and output fields, providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions are present.
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 sentence that includes the action, input, output components, and data source. It is free of fluff and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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 presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers input requirements and expected output fields. Minor missing details (e.g., error handling) are not critical for this simple 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters (lat, lon, lang). The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 tool converts geographic coordinates to a structured address, listing specific output fields (street, city, country, postal code) and data source (Geoapify/OSM). This distinguishes it from forward geocoding tools like geo.address.geocode.
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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like address.geocodio.reverse or geo.address.geocode. The name and title imply reverse geocoding, but clearer guidance on selection criteria is missing.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results include location data and the data source (Geoapify), but does not disclose rate limits or authentication requirements. This represents moderate added 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 sentence of 18 words that front-loads the action and includes output scope and source. No unnecessary 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool returns and the data provider. Minor missing element: no mention of usage restrictions or fallback behavior, but overall sufficient for agent 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?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'ip', with a clear description and examples. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema. 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 verb 'Geolocate', the resource 'IP address (IPv4/IPv6)', and the outputs 'country, city, coordinates, and network info'. It is distinct from sibling geo tools that handle addresses or places, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the name and content make it obvious it is for IP geolocation only. Among many geo siblings, this clarity suffices for context, though explicit exclusions would elevate the 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 read-only, idempotent, open-world. Description adds data source (Geoapify/OSM), providing useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
One efficient sentence that covers all essential aspects: what is searched, where, and by what filters. No wasted words, front-loaded with key info.
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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description provides a clear, high-level understanding. Could mention default radius/limit explicitly, but defaults are in schema. Adequate for a spatial POI search 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%, so the description doesn't need to add details. It does not provide extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given schema richness.
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?
Description clearly specifies the verb 'Search', resource 'points of interest', with concrete examples (restaurants, etc.), and context (near a location, by category, radius). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like geocoding or navigation.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is clear, and sibling tools are in different geo categories (address, navigation) so confusion is unlikely. Lacks explicit 'when not to use'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond noting the data source as 'FEC public disclosure'. No contradiction, but limited 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 two sentences, efficiently front-loading the purpose and key filtering dimensions. Every word adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure is covered. The description provides enough context for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and filtering scope. Missing mention of pagination defaults, but the output schema compensates.
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 parameters. The description reiterates filter options but adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline.
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 identifies the resource as 'Schedule E independent expenditures' by Super PACs, specifies the action (filtering/supporting/opposing), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gov.fec.candidates by focusing on spending data.
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 states the filtering capabilities (cycle, candidate ID, support/oppose direction), implying usage context for FEC independent expenditure queries. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives, missing some comparative 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?
Description adds license info (IBGE CC BY 4.0) and context about usage in tax filings, beyond annotations which already declare read-only and idempotent.
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?
Extremely concise one-sentence description with essential license context, no wasted words.
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?
Description is sufficient given the simple tool, output schema exists, and annotations provide safety guarantees, though no return format is described.
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 coverage is 100% with parameter description; description does not add further meaning about the limit parameter beyond what the schema provides.
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 it provides Brazilian CNAE economic activity classification codes used in CNPJ and tax filings, distinguishing it from sibling tools like municipalities and states.
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 the tool is for retrieving CNAE codes but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
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, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying it returns real-time readings for 5 regions and supports optional historical queries. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise (one sentence plus source/license), front-loaded with essential information, and contains no unnecessary content.
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 optional parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers what is returned, how to query history, and data licensing. No significant gaps are apparent.
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 coverage is 100% with the single parameter fully described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema's 'description' already provides.
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 specifies it provides 'Real-time PM2.5 readings (μg/m³) for the 5 Singapore regions (north/south/east/west/central)', including the data source and license. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gov.sg.weather_forecast or gov.sg.rainfall by focusing on air quality.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. However, the context of sibling tools and the specific focus on PM2.5 implies its usage scope, but alternatives are not named or compared.
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, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by providing the exact count and date, reinforcing it's a safe read operation. No behavioral surprises.
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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the key information: total number of studies and database name.
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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the essential information. Could optionally mention the response format, but not 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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'filter' parameter. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 tool returns the total number of registered clinical studies, specifying the database and a current count. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like health.clinical.search and health.clinical.study by focusing on aggregate stats.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but there is no 'use this for aggregate counts, use health.clinical.search for individual studies' 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds useful behavioral context: returns up to 150 nutrients, portions, etc., and sources from USDA. No contradictions found.
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 contains all essential information: verb, object, scope (up to 150 nutrients), and data source (USDA). No filler 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 presence of an output schema, description does not need to detail return structure. It covers the parameter well and hints at response contents. Lacks mention of any limitations or error conditions, but sufficient for correct 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's description and example. Since schema already documents the parameter adequately, baseline 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?
Description starts with 'Get detailed nutrition data' – a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'health.nutrition.food_search' by focusing on detailed data for one item rather than search. It also specifies scope (up to 150 nutrients, portions, serving sizes, ingredients) and source (USDA).
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?
Description gives clear purpose but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool vs alternatives like 'health.nutrition.food_search'. The agent must infer from context that this is for getting details after obtaining an ID. No explicit when-not or 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the external database (FAERS via OpenFDA) and the nature of the data (adverse event reports), which helps the agent understand the scope and reliability. It does not contradict 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and key details. Every word adds value, and it is efficient without being verbose.
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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's core purpose and data source. However, it could mention pagination or rate limits, but the schema already handles limit/skip. Overall, it is sufficient for a simple read-only search 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with all parameters (search, limit, skip) described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions, so 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 tool searches the FDA FAERS database for drug adverse event reports, specifying the type of data (side effects, reactions, patient demographics) and the source (OpenFDA). It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like health.safety.drug_labels or health.clinical.search.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use drug_labels instead or what the limitations are. Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose, but no exclusions or recommendations are given.
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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the data source (OpenFDA) and the nature of reports (contamination, mislabeling), which is useful beyond annotations but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope.
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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive input schema (100% coverage), the description sufficiently conveys the tool's function. However, it does not mention search capabilities like date range filtering, which could be inferred from the search parameter but is not explicit.
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 all parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 it searches FDA food enforcement and recall reports, specifying contamination, mislabeling, and safety alerts. It includes the data source (OpenFDA) and matches the tool name and title, distinguishing it from siblings like health.nutrition.food_search.
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 food recall searches but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as health.safety.drug_events or health.nutrition.food_search. No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.
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 and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral details: returns specific fields (dataset ID, downloads, likes, tags), covers multiple domains (NLP, vision, audio, tabular), and sorting by downloads. This goes 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 extremely concise with three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition or fluff.
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, schema coverage, and annotations, the description covers core functionality, return fields, and scope. It lacks details on error handling or empty results, but for a search tool, it is sufficiently complete. A score of 4 reflects 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., examples or format details). Baseline 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 it searches datasets on HuggingFace Hub by name or keyword, specifying the resource ('datasets') and verb ('Search'). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'hf.hub.model_details' and 'hf.hub.models', which focus on models, not datasets.
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 when to use (search datasets) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of limitations or comparison with other tools. A score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal usage guidance.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'margin details' which is useful but not critical beyond annotations. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, rate limits) are disclosed. With good annotations, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentence: 'Get account summary and margin details for a user wallet on Hyperliquid'. It is front-loaded with the verb and main object, concise with no wasted words.
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 tool with a simple input (one parameter) and an output schema (indicated by context), the description covers the main functionality. It does not explain edge cases (e.g., invalid wallet address), but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an 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% (the single parameter 'user' is described as 'User wallet address (0x...)'). The description does not add any further information about the parameter beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 'Get account summary and margin details for a user wallet on Hyperliquid', with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account summary and margin details'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hyperliquid.account.positions (positions) or hyperliquid.markets.data (market data).
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 makes it obvious when to use this tool: when needing account-level summary and margin info for a specific wallet. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the tool name and context of sibling tools (e.g., positions) provide clear context. Lacking explicit exclusions drops it from 5 to 4.
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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the returned data (CPU, memory, etc.) and possible statuses, aligning with annotations. No contradiction.
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?
Single sentence, efficient but with a parenthetical '(Browserbase)' at the end that is slightly redundant. Could be trimmed without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what statuses to expect and what fields are returned, leaving no critical 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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameter documentation with a clear description of session_id. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.
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?
Description clearly states the tool checks the status of a Browserbase session, listing possible statuses and return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_session and list_sessions by focusing on a single session's status.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. However, the purpose implies usage after creating a session, and sibling tool names suggest alternatives, but the description does not guide the agent on choosing among them.
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 and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the return value (new record ID) and clarifying the operation's side effect (creation). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional 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 highly concise with two sentences, front-loaded with an action emoji and clear purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.
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 (7 params, 4 required) and the presence of annotations and output schema (implied by 'Returns new record ID'), the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention priority for MX records but schema covers it. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.
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 description adds little beyond summarizing parameters (content, TTL, proxy). It does not provide additional meaning or examples for parameters like zone_id or name that aren't already covered by 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 action 'Create a new DNS record' for Cloudflare zone, lists supported record types (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT), and mentions key parameters (content, TTL, CDN proxy status). It effectively differentiates from siblings like dns_delete and dns_list.
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 implicitly indicates when to use (creating DNS records) but does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or conditions like when not to use or prerequisites. It lacks distinction from sibling tools beyond its name and purpose.
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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it lists categories and can be used for filtering, which is consistent. No contradictions, but the description does not reveal any additional behavioral traits not covered by 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, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose and usage efficiently. No redundant words or 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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no required fields) and has an output schema. The description provides enough context for an agent to understand its use and place among sibling tools. It does not explicitly describe the return structure, but this is acceptable given the output schema exists.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'country' parameter. The description does not add new information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention example categories, which indirectly relates to the output. 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 tool lists job categories for a country, with specific examples (IT, Sales, etc.), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'jobs.adzuna.search' and 'jobs.adzuna.salary' by noting that categories are used to filter search results.
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 (list categories for a country) and explicitly states how to use the output (filter 'adzuna.search' results). However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond the single sibling reference.
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 (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already declare it as a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds value by specifying return fields and mentioning data volume ('70K+ developer jobs in US alone'), but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, sorting, or rate limits 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 two sentences: first covers search scope and parameters, second covers output and a data point. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose. Excellent conciseness.
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 10 parameters, high schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description sufficiently covers search capabilities and return values. It lacks explicit explanation of pagination or sorting, but these are implied by the 'limit' and 'page' parameters. The mention of specific countries and developer jobs adds useful 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage across 10 parameters, each well-documented. The description summarizes search dimensions (keyword, location, category, salary range) and return fields, adding marginal clarification beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool's function: 'Search job listings across 16+ countries' and lists specific search parameters (keyword, location, category, salary range) and return fields (title, company, salary, location, apply URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings like jobs.adzuna.categories and jobs.adzuna.salary by mentioning Adzuna and the broad country coverage.
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 on usage: multi-country job search with defined parameters and output. It implies when to use (e.g., for job listings across these countries) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to other job search tools (e.g., jobs.jooble.search). The reference to get categories from jobs.adzuna.categories is in the schema, not the description, but the description is still adequate.
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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to reinforce safety. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond what's provided by annotations and schema (e.g., rate limits, authentication).
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 a single sentence that efficiently lists provided fields and usage context. It is front-loaded with the action and includes a clear usage note, though it could be slightly broken into bullet points for even better readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameter detail lookup, the description covers all relevant returned fields (title, company, salary, contract type, etc.). With an output schema likely documenting structure, this is complete.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter job_id is well-documented in the schema with description and example. The description briefly reiterates the source of the ID but adds no additional meaning 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 'Get full details of a UK job listing by ID' and lists the specific fields returned. It explicitly connects to sibling tool reed.search by noting job IDs come from there, distinguishing it as a detail endpoint.
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 instructs to use job IDs from reed.search results, implying this tool is for getting details after a search. While it doesn't explicitly say 'do not use for searching', the context and sibling name 'jobs.reed.search' make the intended workflow clear.
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, idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds value by detailing return components and identifying the API source ('Free Dictionary API'). It does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits) are disclosed, but the annotations cover the essential safety profile.
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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key features. It is front-loaded with the main action and lists components concisely. No redundancy or unnecessary words.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values; it already lists components. It covers the main use case (defining a word) and language support. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling, word length limits, or behavior for unsupported characters, but these are not critical for a straightforward lookup 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description reiterates supported languages and provides example words, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already 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 tool's purpose: 'Get word definition' and lists specific components (phonetic pronunciation, part of speech, examples, synonyms, antonyms, audio URL). It distinguishes from siblings like 'language.dictionary.words' by specifying definition retrieval. The verb 'Get' + resource 'word definition' is specific and unambiguous.
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 listing supported languages but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'language.dictionary.words'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned. The guidance is adequate for a simple lookup but lacks explicit when-to-use/not-to-use instructions.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds license (CC-BY 2.0 FR) but no behavioral details like pagination, response structure, 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with scale and purpose, no redundant information.
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 annotations, the description covers key aspects: filters, sort, and reference to language codes. Does not mention optional nature of all parameters or output schema, but these are likely covered elsewhere.
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?
100% schema description coverage means parameters already well-documented. Description summarizes filter options and references tatoeba.languages, but adds no new semantic meaning.
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?
Description clearly identifies tool as search for parallel sentences across languages, mentions scale (13M sentences, 429 languages), and distinguishes from sibling tools like tatoeba.languages and tatoeba.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?
Mentions tatoeba.languages for discovering language codes, provides filter and sort options, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like translation query.
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the source (RECAP Archive, CourtListener/Free Law Project) but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or result format 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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and source. Every word contributes value without fluff.
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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, source, and filter capability. For a search tool, this is nearly complete, though it could mention result size limits (addressed by limit param).
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 verb 'search', the resource 'federal court dockets', and specifies the source (PACER/RECAP) and what it contains (case filings, motions, orders). It distinguishes from siblings like 'legal.caselaw.opinion' and 'legal.caselaw.search' by focusing specifically on dockets.
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 searching dockets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'legal.caselaw.search' or 'legal.caselaw.opinion'. However, the context of 'dockets' against sibling names provides clear differentiation.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the context of the data source scope (90+ years of records) but does not mention additional behaviors like rate limits or pagination. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate.
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 long, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value ('Search the US Federal Register', document types, filtering options, data scope). No unnecessary information.
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 that output schema exists (not shown but declared), the description does not need to cover return values. Parameters are fully covered by schema, annotations handle safety. The description provides sufficient context about what is searchable (document types, agencies, dates). Minor gap: no mention of data update frequency, but overall complete for this tool's complexity.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description mentions filtering by agency, type, date, which maps directly to schema parameters but does not add new information beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool searches the US Federal Register and lists specific document types (final rules, proposed rules, notices, executive orders). It also mentions filtering options and coverage span, distinguishing it from related tools like legal.fedregister.document and legal.fedregister.recent.
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 indicates when to use the tool (searching federal register records) and implicitly suggests filtering capabilities. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context of '90+ years of official federal government records' provides reasonable guidance for a search tool.
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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context: the response includes HD/SD video files with dimensions, duration, and download URLs, and notes the free commercial license. This complements the annotations well.
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 front-loads the action and key output details. No redundant information.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, output types, and licensing. However, it omits mention of pagination or total result count, which could be helpful for usage.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description mentions keyword search but adds little beyond the schema. 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches free stock videos by keyword, specifying the output (HD/SD files, dimensions, duration, download URLs) and licensing (free for commercial use). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_photos and curated.
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 this tool is for searching videos by keyword, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., curated or photos). No when-not or alternative tool guidance 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about return fields and source of feed ID but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like ordering or pagination behavior beyond the max parameter.
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 no wasted words. The first sentence contains the purpose and return fields, while the second provides parameter guidance. It is 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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, source of required parameter, and what is returned. It could mention ordering (recent implies by date) and pagination explicitly, but with the output schema present, this is acceptable.
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, and the description reiterates the source of the 'id' parameter but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. For example, 'max' and 'since' are already documented in 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 'List recent episodes for a podcast by feed ID' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the return fields (title, description, publish date, audio URL, duration, season/episode numbers) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like media.podcast.search, media.podcast.details, and media.podcast.trending by focusing on episodes.
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 advises to 'Use feed ID from search or trending results (PodcastIndex)', providing clear context for parameter sourcing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose implies it's for episode listing after obtaining a feed ID.
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 destructiveHint=true, so mutation is clear. Description adds context about file size (50MB) and format support, but doesn't discuss rate limits, permissions, or error behavior. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded: first sentence states action and key constraints, second sentence suggests use cases. No fluff, well-structured for quick comprehension.
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?
Tool has output schema, so return details not needed. Description covers purpose, file types, size, and use cases. Could mention that document URL must be publicly accessible or require bot permissions, but completeness is satisfactory for a simple send 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 has 100% coverage, each parameter with a description. The description adds the 50MB limit (not in schema) but little else for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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?
Clearly states 'Send a file/document to a Telegram chat' with specific format examples (PDF, CSV, ZIP) and a size limit. Distinguishes from sibling tools like send_message and send_photo by focusing on document sending.
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?
Mentions use cases like 'sending reports, data exports, generated files' but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to other send tools. However, the context of sibling tools and the specific verb 'send_document' imply its domain.
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?
Adds behavioral details beyond annotations: requires 'https://' URL or file_id, supports specific formats and size limit. Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true; description does not contradict and adds useful constraints.
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 short sentences with front-loaded action and resource, no wasted words. Includes all essential info 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?
Covers key behavioral and input constraints. Output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Could mention rate limits or permissions briefly, but current completeness is sufficient for a simple tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. Description adds value by specifying that photo must be URL (https) or file_id, and limits formats and size, which are not in schema descriptions.
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 'send' and the resource 'photo to a Telegram chat', includes supported formats (JPG, PNG, GIF) and size limit (10MB), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_document.
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 instead of alternatives like send_document or send_message. The description does not mention context 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the data returned (tags, ratings, etc.) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no extraneous words. Every word is informative.
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?
An output schema exists (not shown) which covers return values. The description lists some fields, providing additional context. It does not discuss errors or edge cases, but given the low complexity and annotations, it is adequately complete.
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 single parameter 'mbid' has full schema coverage (100%). The description merely restates 'by MusicBrainz ID', adding no new semantic information beyond the schema's description.
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 ('Get'), the resource ('detailed artist info'), and the identifier ('MusicBrainz ID'). It lists specific fields (tags, ratings, external links, life span, area), making the purpose obvious. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'music.artists.search' which is for searching, not details.
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 when you have a MusicBrainz ID, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'music.artists.search'. However, the context is clear enough for an AI to infer when to use this tool.
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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds context (MusicBrainz, 50M+ recordings) but not additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination details. It does not contradict 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 with a parenthetical note, front-loaded with key action and scope. Every word is meaningful, no 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 annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and data source. It could mention pagination or sort order but is sufficient for an informed 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions and examples. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, merely reinforcing searchable fields. Baseline 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 tool searches for albums, singles, and EPs, specific resource types, and distinguishes from sibling tools like music.artists.search and music.recordings.search by focusing on releases. It also mentions the data source (MusicBrainz) and available search criteria (title, artist, date).
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 the tool is for release-type searches but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It clearly defines scope but lacks direct alternative recommendations.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the source (DSCOVR EPIC camera), the nature of images (daily natural color photos), and the vantage point (Lagrange point L1). No contradictions.
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, front-loaded sentence of about 25 words. Every part is meaningful, with no redundant or extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key context.
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 has an output schema (not shown but present), the description does not need to detail return values. With one optional parameter and clear purpose, the description covers the essential context for selecting and using the tool. Minor gap: no mention of how images are returned or any pagination, but not critical for a simple read-only 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%, and the single parameter 'date' is well-documented in the schema with its format and default. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, only repeating the tool's purpose. Baseline 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full-disc Earth images', specifying the DSCOVR satellite EPIC camera, daily natural color photos, and location (Lagrange point L1). This distinguishes it from other NASA tools like 'nasa.asteroids.feed' which targets asteroids.
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 Earth images from DSCOVR but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings such as 'nasa.astronomy.apod' or 'nasa.media.search'. No alternatives are mentioned, and there is no contextual guidance on when not to use it.
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 provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context: it returns the latest version by default and supports scoped packages. This adds value beyond annotations 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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core functionality. Every sentence provides essential information without fluff.
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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and its version behavior. It omits error handling (e.g., missing package), but this is minor for a read-only info 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 both parameters documented. The description reiterates the version defaulting behavior but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema examples.
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 it retrieves metadata for an npm package and lists the specific fields returned. It also mentions support for scoped packages and version defaulting, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The tool is well-distinguished from siblings like npm.packages.search or npm.packages.downloads.
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 fetching metadata of a single package, but does not explicitly provide when to use vs alternatives (e.g., npm.packages.search for searching, npm.packages.versions for listing versions). No exclusion criteria or context for when not to use is given.
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, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that it returns an array of matches with specific fields and is sortable by date, providing additional behavioral context 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key purpose ('Recent match history for a Dota 2 player') and efficiently lists output fields and sorting capability.
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?
The description covers purpose, output fields, and sorting. Given the presence of annotations and output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is sufficient for a list retrieval tool. It lacks usage guidelines but is otherwise complete.
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?
Both parameters (account_id, limit) are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new parameter information but mentions 'sortable by date,' which is not a parameter but a feature. 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns recent match history for a Dota 2 player, listing specific fields (match_id, hero, kills/deaths/assists, etc.) and mentions it is sortable by date. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opendota.matches.detail (single match) and opendota.players.summary.
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 (player match history) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like opendota.players.summary or opendota.matches.detail. No when-not or alternative comparisons 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?
Adds context beyond annotations: optional parameters cost extra credit, caller name is US-only. Annotations already cover safety/idempotency. Good disclosure of costs and restrictions.
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, well-structured with main purpose first, then optional details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers validation and optional lookups. Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Complete for a lookup tool.
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?
Description adds value beyond schema by noting costs and US-only restriction for caller name. Schema coverage is 100%, but description enhances 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?
Description clearly states the tool does phone number validation and lookup, listing returned fields. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling phone tools but is clear enough.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, but the description implies simple lookup use. Annotations indicate safety, but no when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds useful behavioral details: update frequency (every 10 minutes) and cost (free). 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?
Extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, key metrics, use case, update frequency, and cost. No fluff, well 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?
Output schema exists (not shown), so return values are documented elsewhere. Description covers purpose, usage guidance, update frequency, and cost. Complete enough for an agent to decide when to call this 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 has 100% coverage with a description for 'tool_id'. Description adds an example format but does not significantly expand beyond schema. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states it retrieves quality metrics (uptime, latency, error rate, calls) for any tool. It uses a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'platform.quality.rankings', the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Includes explicit guidance to 'Check reliability before calling expensive tools', indicating a key use case. Does not specify when not to use, but the context is clear and helpful for decision-making.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds a list of returned fields but no further behavioral context 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates purpose and usage without unnecessary words.
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 lookup tool with annotations and output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and ID sourcing. Minor omission: no mention of error handling for invalid IDs.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', and the description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 full details' for a podcast by ID, lists specific fields returned, and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that IDs come from listennotes.search or listennotes.best.
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?
It explicitly tells when to use: when you have a Listen Notes ID, and directs to use IDs from search/best tools. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.
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 safe, read-only operation. Description adds details about returned metadata fields and support for specific version lookup, which is valuable 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences covering purpose, features, and context. Concise with no fluff, though the second sentence packs multiple ideas. Adequately structured for a simple 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 output schema exists, description provides useful summary of returned fields. Covers parameters implicitly and usage context. Could mention rate limits or auth if needed, but overall complete for a metadata lookup tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. Description adds behavioral hint that version defaults to latest release, and lists returned metadata, providing extra meaning beyond 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?
Clearly states it retrieves metadata for Python packages from PyPI, listing specific fields. Mentions complementing npm for polyglot context but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling pypi.packages.releases.
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?
Provides usage context for polyglot dependency intelligence (Python vs npm). Does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for releases), but the purpose is clear enough for correct 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about the returned data fields but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid ligand ID) or authentication 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key output fields. Every word is necessary and efficient, with no 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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the main functionality and output fields adequately. It does not address behavior on missing IDs or rate limits, but for a simple lookup tool, this is acceptable. The openWorldHint suggests it may work with future entities.
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 already provides detailed description of the ligand_id parameter with examples. The tool description adds value by mentioning the broader scope ('covers ATP, HEM, NAG, drug molecules, cofactors, ions, and 40K+ chemical entities'), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's examples.
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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'chemical component data for a ligand/small molecule by its 3-letter PDB code', listing specific output fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling PDB tools (science.pdb.search, science.pdb.sequence, science.pdb.structure) by focusing exclusively on ligand chemistry.
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 ligand chemical data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative PDB tools (e.g., for other PDB queries) or provide exclusion criteria. No 'when not to use' guidance is given.
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 and idempotent behavior; description adds context by listing returned fields, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication, but these are acceptable given 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?
Single sentence front-loads key output fields and scope, with no redundant information.
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?
With output schema present and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose and scope; lacks minor details on result interpretation but overall complete.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters (q, gl, num); description does not add new meaning beyond what schema provides, baseline score applies.
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?
Description clearly states it returns Google Image search results with specific fields (image URL, thumbnail, dimensions, source domain) and can search any visual content worldwide, distinguishing it from other search tools.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search.google.web or search.ai.extract; usage is implied but not directly addressed.
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 safe read-only operation. Description adds behavioral context: real-time nature, global coverage in 70+ languages, and available filtering options, all 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?
Two concise sentences front-loaded with purpose and features, no unnecessary words.
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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers essential purpose, return fields, and filtering. Slightly lacking on default number of results or maximum, but 'num' parameter in schema handles that.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the time filter parameter (tbs) with examples, but other parameters are already well-documented in 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?
Clearly states it searches real-time Google News articles, specifying the resource and return fields (title, source, date, snippet, image). Distinguishes from siblings like search.google.images or search.google.web by focusing exclusively on news.
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?
Implies usage for news search via 'Real-time Google News articles' and provides time filter options, but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or mentions of other news tools available on the server.
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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by noting real-time results, result types (knowledge graph, answer box), and the underlying service (Serper.dev), which are beyond the annotation fields. No contradictions detected.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Real-time Google web search results') and then enumerates key features. No unnecessary words; every phrase adds 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 complexity (pagination, multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential context: result types, targeting support, and real-time nature. It does not discuss pagination details, but the schema handles parameter documentation. Minor gaps like default values are covered by the 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description mentions 'country and language targeting' which adds some context to gl and hl parameters, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 it provides real-time Google web search results and lists specific result types (organic listings, knowledge graph, answer box, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search.google.images, search.google.news, etc. by specifying 'web search'.
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 general web search with country and language targeting, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search.semantic.web, search.ai.web) or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or alternative references.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns relevance scores and highlighted excerpts, providing useful context beyond annotations 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 three concise sentences, each adding value: first states core purpose, second lists filters, third mentions output. Well front-loaded and no wasted words.
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 has 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers core functionality, filters, output format, and provider (Exa). It is complete enough to understand what the tool does and what to expect from results.
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 parameters. The description only summarizes features generically (e.g., 'category filters') without adding new details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 it performs neural/semantic web search using Exa, distinguishing it from keyword search by finding conceptually related pages. It lists supported features like category filters, domain filtering, and date range, making the purpose specific and differentiated from sibling tools.
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 use for semantic relevance (not keywords) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search.google.web or search.semantic.contents. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds that it returns top awards by amount and fiscal year, and specifies the data source, providing useful context 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?
Three concise sentences: purpose, output description, and data source. Front-loaded with key information, no fluff.
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 presence of output schema and complete annotations, the description is sufficient. Minor gap: does not explicitly state that results are sorted by award amount descending, but the term 'top awards' implies 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The description mentions agency name and fiscal year implicitly but does not add significant new information beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool searches federal awards by agency name, returns top awards by amount for a fiscal year, and identifies the data source (USAspending.gov). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'spending.federal.awards' which may not be agency-specific.
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 (e.g., for agency-specific award searches) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it.
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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that results are sorted and include all states. However, it claims 'all 50+ states' while annotations include openWorldHint=true, which could imply potential incompleteness. No contradiction arises given the small dataset, but it's a minor ambiguity.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and efficiently communicates purpose, filters, output, use case, and source without extraneous words.
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-only tool with an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, what parameters, output summary, and use case. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description only reiterates the award_type enum values and fiscal year concept, adding no new semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides.
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 returns total US federal spending by state, filtered by award type and fiscal year, and indicates the output is all 50+ states sorted by amount. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., spending.federal.agency) by focusing on geographic aggregation.
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 mentions use cases ('regional economic analysis and policy research') but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. Usage is 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the output content (nutrition breakdown, dietary labels, caloric distribution). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and purpose. No extraneous words; every word earns its place.
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 existence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main purpose and return values. However, it could briefly note that the recipe should be realistic or that instructions are optional, but this is not critical.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'title and ingredient list' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It adequately complements the schema without repeating 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 specifies a verb ('Analyze') and resource ('recipe nutrition'), and explicitly states the return values (nutrition breakdown, dietary labels, caloric distribution). It distinguishes from sibling tools like spoonacular.recipes.search or spoonacular.recipes.details by focusing on nutrition analysis of a given recipe.
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 scenarios (when you have a recipe and want nutrition analysis) but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools. It lacks explicit guidance on selecting this over siblings.
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, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that results include nutrition data, but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits). No contradiction with annotations, but minimal extra 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 sentence with 24 words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word conveys meaningful information without redundancy. 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?
Given the complexity of 8 optional parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers key features like filters and included nutrition data. However, it lacks guidance on selecting this tool over sibling tools. Still, it provides sufficient context for typical recipe search tasks.
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?
Schema has 100% coverage for all 8 parameters. The description adds value by mentioning specific dietary filters (vegan, keto, gluten-free) and noting that results include nutrition data, which supplements the schema. This justifies a score above baseline 3.
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 searches over 365K recipes with various filters (dietary, cuisine, meal type, max prep time) and mentions nutrition data. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like analyze, by_ingredients, and details by focusing on search and filtering.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists available filters but lacks contrast with sibling tools like spoonacular.recipes.analyze or spoonacular.recipes.by_ingredients. Usage context is implied but not clearly guided.
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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds the data fields and league examples but no additional behavioral traits 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 extremely concise, two sentences front-loading the core function and listing supported leagues, with no superfluous content.
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 simple parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and provides useful league examples. It misses mentioning that the season parameter defaults to current, but this is minor.
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?
Schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds concrete league ID examples (e.g., 39 for Premier League), enhancing parameter understanding beyond the schema's generic descriptions.
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 it returns league standings with specific fields (rank, points, wins, etc.) and lists major league IDs, differentiating it from sibling tools like sports.football.fixtures or sports.football.leagues.
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 use for getting standings for a given league and season but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by specifying what is returned (validity, company name, registered address) and that it uses VIES. This enriches understanding beyond annotations, though it omits potential rate limits or service quirks.
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?
A single sentence efficiently conveys the tool's action, source, return data, coverage, and format example with zero wasted words. Excellent structure.
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 one-parameter validation tool with a rich output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, return data, geographic scope, and input format. It lacks discussion of edge cases or error conditions, but is adequate for confident selection and 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already includes examples. The description repeats the format and examples but does not provide additional semantic nuance beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool validates EU VAT numbers via VIES, returns validity status, company name, and address, and explicitly lists coverage (all 27 EU member states + UK) with format examples. This distinguishes it from siblings (currencies/rates) and is specific and comprehensive.
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 implicitly indicates usage for EU VAT validation, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Since no sister VAT validation tools exist, the lack of alternatives is partially mitigated, but direct guidance is missing.
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 the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying that it returns segments, genres, and sub-genres, enhancing behavioral understanding 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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any redundant words or 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 existence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. However, it could mention pagination or the hierarchical nature of categories.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.
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 retrieves all event classification categories including segments, genres, and sub-genres. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource, and uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. While the context implies it is for fetching categories, no direct guidance is given.
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. The description adds specific context about the data returned (dates, venues, prices, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key details. No extraneous information, making it efficient for an agent 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?
The description mentions specific data fields and the tool has an output schema, providing good context. However, it does not cover error cases or further usage notes, so it is slightly incomplete.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for 'id' and 'locale'. The tool description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 uses a clear verb 'Get' and resource 'full details for an event', listing specific attributes like dates, venues, prices. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like search or nearby by focusing on a single event via its ID.
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 comprehensive info about a specific event, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Given the sibling tools, an agent can infer the context, but no explicit guidance 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by noting DST awareness and support for 597 IANA timezones, supplementing the 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 conveying purpose, DST awareness, timezone count, and data source. Every word adds value; no redundant information.
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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's core function, DST behavior, and scope. Missing explicit mention of input format, but schema covers that.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add further semantic detail beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectations.
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?
Description clearly states the tool converts date/time between timezones, specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like current and zones by its unique function.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like time.worldclock.current or time.worldclock.zones. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but lacks direct comparison.
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, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable context such as auto-detection, batch capability, HTML preservation, and pricing, which are not captured by 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every phrase adds 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?
With 4 parameters and an output schema present, the description covers key aspects: language range, auto-detect, batch, HTML, and pricing. It lacks details on error handling or per-request limits, but the annotations and output schema fill some 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds modest extra meaning (e.g., 'batch translation' clarifies the array type, 'auto-detects source' restates optionality). It does not significantly exceed what the schema provides.
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 it translates text between 90+ languages, with specific features like auto-detection, batch support, and HTML preservation. It effectively distinguishes the tool as the primary translation service among siblings (detect, languages).
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 translation tasks and mentions Google Translate v2 compatibility as a context clue, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'translate.text.detect' or 'translate.text.languages'.
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 safe, idempotent read. Description adds context about NPS public domain and enumerates metadata fields, which goes 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with main action, no fluff. Efficient and clear.
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 output schema exists, description adequately covers what to expect. Could mention pagination more explicitly, but schema handles parameter explanations.
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 baseline is 3. Description mentions filter criteria but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states it searches US national parks, lists the number (474) and types of metadata returned (coords, activities, fees, etc.). Differentiates from siblings (alerts, campgrounds, things_to_do) by being the general park search.
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?
Provides filter options but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus its siblings. Lacks when-not-to-use guidance, though filter hints imply use cases.
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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying pagination support and the specific fields returned, complementing the annotation hints 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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second details return fields and pagination. No unnecessary information, 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 simple list tool with good schema coverage and existing annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what is returned, how pagination works, and the user scope. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it might optionally mention default ordering or rate limits.
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 explains both parameters. The description reinforces that username is without '@' and that cursor is for pagination, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 gets a paginated follower list for a Twitter/X user, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'follower list'. It lists returned fields (username, display name, bio, follower count, verified status) and mentions pagination, distinguishing it from sibling tools like profile retrieval.
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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., twitter.users.profile for a single profile). It mentions cursor pagination, implying iterative usage, but lacks explicit context about when to use or avoid this tool.
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 readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld hints. The description adds context about return fields (UPC codes, images, categories, price ranges) which is useful 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?
A single, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. Front-loaded with the verb 'search'.
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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential search and return aspects. No major gaps for a search tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds a high-level overview of what fields can be searched and returned, providing context 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 tool's purpose: search products by name, brand, or description, and lists the return fields. It distinguishes from the sibling 'upc.products.lookup' by implying a text search focus.
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 vs alternatives like upc.products.lookup. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive hints. Description adds 'US Gov free' and clarifies empty array behavior for missing monitors. No contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with core task, lists returned fields and source. No redundancy, every word adds 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?
Simple tool with strong annotations and schema. Description covers essential behavior; output schema likely exists. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or data freshness, but acceptable.
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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (zip format, distance default/behavior). Description adds no additional parameter information beyond 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 it returns current AQI observations for a US ZIP code, listing specific pollutants and categories. It distinguishes from sibling tools like forecast variants and lat/lng versions.
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 use when ZIP code is available but does not explicitly guide when to choose this over lat/lng or forecast siblings. No alternatives or exclusions 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, safe, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (event, severity, urgency, etc.), which is not present in annotations. No contradictions.
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?
A single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose, scope, and output content. No redundant or vague wording.
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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on input (state) and high-level output fields. It provides enough context for a tool of moderate complexity, though it could briefly mention that only currently active alerts are returned.
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?
Both parameters (state, limit) have complete schema descriptions. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'US state code' for state. Baseline 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 tool retrieves active weather alerts for a specific US state, listing the data categories (event, severity, urgency, description, area, timing) and source (NWS/NOAA). It distinguishes from siblings like weather.alerts.active (national) and weather.alerts.get (specific alert).
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 use for state-level alerts but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools (weather.alerts.active, weather.alerts.get). No guidance on when to choose this over alternatives 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by listing returned fields (muscles, equipment, category) but does not detail error behavior or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the purpose and expected output; the second connects it to a sibling tool. No wasted words.
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-only detail endpoint with a single required parameter and annotations already present, the description is nearly complete. It mentions key output fields and usage context. An output schema (present but not shown) covers the return structure, so the description is 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?
Schema coverage is 100% (one required integer 'id' with a description including an example). The description does not add semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is correct.
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 starts with 'Get full exercise details by ID'—a specific verb+resource—and lists what it returns (description, muscles, equipment, category). It explicitly mentions using with exercise_search to build workout plans, distinguishing it from siblings.
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 advises using this tool with exercise_search, implying a workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context (open-source database, 896 exercises, CC-BY-SA license) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Search 896 exercises by name'). Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy or wasted words.
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 simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the search functionality. It mentions returned fields (name, category, ID) and source context. Could hint at search behavior (e.g., exact vs partial match), but not required for 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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'term', and the description adds value by providing multiple examples of valid search terms (bench press, squat, etc.), clarifying usage beyond the schema description.
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 explicitly states 'Search 896 exercises by name' with concrete examples (bench press, squat, deadlift, curl). It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'wger.fitness.exercise_details' by mentioning it returns ID for details lookup, making the purpose distinct.
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 search by name and hints at using details tool for more info, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is adequate 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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating the data source (official UN reporting) and scope (up to 194 countries, multiple decades), providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and filters. Every phrase is informative and earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description covers the tool's purpose, scope, data source, and optional filters. It does not detail pagination or response structure, but the output schema likely handles that. Adequate for a data retrieval 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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description mentions optional country and year filters but does not add semantics beyond what the schema provides for individual parameters like indicator code format or limit default.
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 retrieves WHO health data for a specific indicator, with optional country and year filters. It specifies the scope (up to 194 countries, multiple decades) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like who.health.indicators (which provides indicator codes) and who.health.countries (which lists countries).
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 health data by indicator is needed but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. The hint about getting indicator codes from who.indicators is only in the parameter schema, not in the description, limiting guidance.
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 readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns indicator codes for use with who.data, which is not behavioral but contextual. No contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and examples; no redundant wording. Efficiently conveys what the tool does and its output.
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, the description covers the purpose and output usage well. Output schema exists (though not shown), so return values are documented. Slightly lacking in pagination details but not essential.
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?
Input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (search and limit). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate for 100% 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?
Clearly states it lists 1,000+ WHO Global Health Observatory indicators, with specific examples (life expectancy, mortality rates, etc.). Differentiates from siblings like who.health.countries and who.health.data by mentioning returns indicator codes for use with who.data.
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?
Describes purpose and explicitly notes that returned codes are for use with who.data, providing context for follow-up actions. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling context and the tool's role as a list are clear enough.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning the data source (WhoisXML). 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with the verb 'Find' immediately conveys the action. Every word earns its place; no 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 simple tool with one parameter, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and source. Minor gap: no mention of result volume or pagination.
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 single 'keyword' parameter has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The tool description reiterates acceptable keyword types (person, company, email) but adds no new semantics 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 it finds domains registered by a person, company, or email, specifying it's a reverse WHOIS lookup for OSINT and brand monitoring. This differentiates it from sibling tools like whois.domain.lookup and whois.domain.availability.
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 context for use (OSINT, brand monitoring) and implies the tool is for reverse lookups, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives among siblings.
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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context that the data comes from the REST Countries API and lists returned fields, which adds 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 concise: a single sentence with a follow-up listing return fields. Every sentence adds value, and the 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?
Given the tool's simplicity, good annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It briefly lists return fields, providing enough context for selection without being exhaustive.
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 coverage, the schema already documents the parameter. The description mentions example codes (US, GB, DE, JP) but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema's description which includes alpha-2 and alpha-3.
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', the resource 'country details', and the input 'ISO code'. It lists specific return fields (name, population, area, capital, currencies, languages, flag), distinguishing it from sibling tools like world.country.search.
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 use when an ISO code is available but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like world.country.search. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, making the tool's non-destructive nature obvious. The description adds that it relies on Postcodes.io and returns a boolean, but doesn't elaborate on rate limits or other behavioral nuances.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and typical use cases without any superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple validation tool with 1 parameter and boolean output, the description provides all necessary information: what it does, how to use it (example postcode), and the data source. No further detail is needed.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear example and explanation. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's description.
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 checks if a UK postcode is valid and exists, returning a boolean. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like address.ukpost.lookup (which likely returns details) by focusing purely on validation.
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?
Explicitly recommends use for 'form validation or data cleaning'. While it doesn't state when not to use it, the context implies that for detailed postcode information, other sibling tools would be more appropriate.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds 'confirm and get final pricing', which aligns with the read-only nature, but does not disclose additional context like rate limits or authentication needs. Given the annotation coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond stating the action.
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, concise sentence of 14 words that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter, clear annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), and an output schema (indicated true), the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and the required input, without needing to explain return values because the output schema covers that.
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% coverage for the single required parameter 'flight_offer', with a description 'Flight offer object from flight_search results'. The tool description merely restates that it comes from Amadeus flight search, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 tool confirms and gets final pricing for a flight offer from Amadeus flight search. It uses a specific verb (confirm/get) and resource (final pricing), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like amadeus.flights.search (which searches flights) and amadeus.flights.status (which checks status).
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 after obtaining a flight offer from flight search, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor mention alternatives. However, the name and context make it clear, so it is mostly clear but lacks 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?
Annotations declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the specific information returned (delays, cancellations, gate info) and the source (Amadeus). It does not contradict 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the clarity of the description for a straightforward status lookup tool, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action: 'Get real-time status of a specific flight', and specifies the types of status information provided (delays, cancellations, gate info). It distinguishes from siblings like amadeus.flights.search and amadeus.flights.price by focusing on status rather than search or pricing.
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 checking the real-time status of a specific flight but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like amadeus.flights.search or other flight status tools. No exclusion criteria 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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explicitly naming the data source (MyAnimeList via Jikan) and listing the returned fields, though it does not disclose potential rate limits or response size.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists key fields. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what data it returns. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 sole parameter 'id' is well-described in the input schema with examples (e.g., 13 for One Piece). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, and schema coverage is 100%, so a 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 action ('Get full manga details'), the specific resource (by MAL ID), and enumerates the data fields returned (synopsis, chapters, volumes, authors, score, rank, genres), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious and distinct from sibling tools like search.
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?
While the description implicitly indicates usage when a MAL ID is known and full details are needed, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search tools) and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
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 state readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it fetches data from MyAnimeList via Jikan and returns specific fields. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling, but annotations cover safety and idempotency, making the description adequate.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key details without unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter with complete schema coverage, an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), and the description fully explains what data is returned. No gaps are present.
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% coverage for the single parameter 'id', with a clear description. The tool's description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's description of the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 tool retrieves character cast and Japanese voice actors for an anime, specifying data types (names, roles, images) and source (MyAnimeList via Jikan). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like anime.titles.details (general details) and anime.titles.search (search by title).
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 indicates when to use this tool (for character/voice actor information) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to select the correct tool among siblings.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the data source (MyAnimeList via Jikan), which is useful but not essential.
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 key purpose and lists returned fields without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema documenting return values, the description provides all necessary context for a simple lookup tool, including the data source and field list.
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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 action 'Get full anime details' by a specific identifier (MAL ID) and lists the exact data fields returned (synopsis, score, rank, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search or top lists.
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 tells when to use this tool: when you have a known MAL ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'anime.titles.search' for finding by name, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear.
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 and idempotentHint, establishing safety. The description adds valuable context about the data provider (Jikan/MyAnimeList) and the scope (28K+ titles), as well as result highlights (scores, episodes, studios, seasons). 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?
A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function, scope, and data source. No filler, front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich input schema with parameter descriptions and an existing output schema, the description provides a high-level overview that covers all key aspects of the tool. Pagination and sorting are handled by the schema. The description is complete for its purpose.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description restates some parameter categories (name, genre, type, etc.) but does not add new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the 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 tool's purpose: searching anime titles by multiple criteria (name, genre, type, status, rating) and indicates the data source (MyAnimeList via Jikan). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools focused on specific functions like top rankings or details.
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 use for general search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like anime.titles.top or anime.titles.details. No exclusions or contrast with siblings are provided, relying on user inference.
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 value beyond the annotations by specifying the forecast period (24-30 hours), update cadence (4x daily), and content breakdown (6-hour windows). It does not contradict the readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, or idempotentHint annotations, and the openWorldHint aligns with the forecast nature.
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 concise (two sentences) with the essential information front-loaded: type of forecast, validity period, content, and update frequency. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (true), the description does not need to detail return values. It sufficiently covers the what, when, and update frequency, making it complete for a forecast retrieval tool with 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?
The single parameter (icao_codes) is fully described in the schema with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description reiterates the parameter's purpose but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 tool provides TAF Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts for airports, specifying the time frame (24-30 hours) and included elements (wind, visibility, weather phenomena, sky conditions in 6-hour windows). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aviation.metar.current or checkwx.taf.decoded.
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?
While the description clarifies the scope and update frequency, it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives like checkwx.taf.decoded or aviation.metar.current. The context of 24-30 hour forecasts implies usage for planning but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it is 'Free Use Bible API' but does not go beyond annotations in disclosing behavioral traits. The return format (book IDs and chapter counts) is a minor addition.
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 main action, and every word adds value. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately informs about inputs and outputs. It mentions the purpose and how the output relates to another tool (bible.passage).
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 high coverage (100%) with a detailed description for the 'translation' parameter. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'List the books in a specific Bible translation' and provides an example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bible.text.passage by noting that returned book IDs and chapter counts are needed for that tool.
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 indicates when to use this tool (when you need the list of books for a translation) and mentions that it provides data needed for bible.passage. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning 'Free Use Bible API' and output fields. No rate limits, pagination details, or other behavioral traits are disclosed.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that cover purpose, examples, output fields, and API usage. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (one optional parameter, rich annotations, output schema exists), the description fully covers the necessary context. It tells what the tool does, what to expect, and refers to the API as free.
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 schema already documents the single optional 'limit' parameter completely (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information, so it provides no additional value 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 tool lists available scholarly Bible commentaries, names specific examples (Matthew Henry, JFB, Gill), and lists output fields (commentary ID, name, language). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bible.catalog.books and bible.catalog.translations by focusing on commentaries.
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 the tool (to list commentaries) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare with sibling tools. Given the high schema coverage and descriptive tool name, the agent can infer usage adequately.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond stating it's a 'Free Use Bible API'. 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?
Two sentences, front-loads the purpose with no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a clear function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, strong annotations, and mention of return format (array of {number, text}), the description is complete. No missing behavioral details needed for this read-only chapter fetch.
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 adequate descriptions for each parameter. The description's example (KJV/John/3) adds marginal value beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description clearly states the tool fetches verse-by-verse text of a Bible chapter, specifying required inputs (translation, book, chapter) with an example. It distinguishes itself from sibling catalog tools that list books/translations.
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?
Description implies when to use this tool (to get Bible chapter text) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not guidance. However, sibling tool names (e.g., 'bible.catalog.books') make the distinction clear.
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 a safe read operation (readOnlyHint). Description adds value by listing specific return fields (biography, dates, photo, Wikipedia link), providing behavioral context 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and key information. No extraneous content, highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with annotations and output schema present, the description is complete. Covers purpose, key return fields, and necessary input 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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter description and example. Description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond restating the ID format, so baseline score applies.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'author profile' with explicit data points (biography, dates, photo, Wikipedia link). Clearly defines the tool's function without ambiguity.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is clear from context, and siblings like 'books.works.details' are distinct. Implies usage but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral traits beyond listing the data fields. It does not disclose rate limits or data freshness, but annotations cover the essential safety aspects.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all key information: input method, output fields, and data source. No unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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, clear purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the input, output, and source adequately. No gaps remain.
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 one required parameter 'isbn' with a description that includes examples. Schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds clarification that accepts ISBN-10 or ISBN-13, but this is already implied by the schema. The parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema, so the description adds minimal 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: 'Look up a book by ISBN-10 or ISBN-13' and lists the returned data (title, author, publisher, pages, cover image, subjects). It also mentions the source and scale (40M+ books from Open Library/Internet Archive). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search by other criteria.
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 tells the agent to use this tool when an ISBN is available. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the specificity makes the usage context clear. No misleading 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?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) indicate safe, idempotent read behavior. The description transparently adds that it returns a comprehensive set of fields and notes the source as Gutendex MIT. No 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?
Single sentence conveys purpose, scope, filters, and return data efficiently. Every element earns its place; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description suitably explains inputs and broad output domains. It covers search use cases completely and aligns with the tool's role among 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not significantly extend parameter semantics beyond the schema but groups the filters and adds context about free-text search. Baseline 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 tool searches 78K+ books using multiple filters (free-text, language, topic, author birth year) and lists specific return fields. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like books.gutendex.book and books.gutendex.popular by emphasizing search 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 searching public-domain books but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like books.gutendex.by_author or books.gutendex.popular. No exclusions or guidance on selecting among siblings.
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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, confirming it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the return fields (legal name, address, etc.) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one required parameter and an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description sufficiently lists the return fields. It is complete for a simple lookup 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the 'lei' parameter with min/max length. The description adds context ('20-character LEI code' and 'Use LEI from search results (GLEIF)') but does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 it provides full details for a legal entity by 20-character LEI code, listing specific fields (legal name, address, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like business.lei.search (which searches for LEIs) and business.lei.relationships (which shows relationships).
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?
It explicitly says 'Use LEI from search results (GLEIF)', providing clear context for when to use this tool. It implies the tool is for retrieving details after obtaining an LEI, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention 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 provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, and openWorldHint true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool covers all companies registered under the Companies Act, which is useful but does not significantly expand beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and scope, 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.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it clarifies the registry scope (UK Companies House), the search parameter, and the returned fields. No gaps remain.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions sample searches in the schema's parameter description (e.g., 'Barclays', 'Tesco') and briefly lists returned fields, but adds only marginal value beyond the schema itself.
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 it searches the UK Companies House registry by name and lists the specific fields returned (company number, name, type, status, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool business.ukcompany.details, which likely provides details for a specific company.
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 searching by company name and hints at the scope (UK Companies House). It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like business.ukcompany.details, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer proper 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 and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns decoded JSON with specific fields (wind, visibility, etc.). No contradictions. Good context 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 concise (about 60 words), front-loaded with core purpose, and structures output field details efficiently. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and why it's useful. No gaps in context given the tool's scope.
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 coverage is 100% with a well-described parameter (icao_codes). The description adds minimal new parameter info beyond 'one or more airports', not compensating for low coverage since coverage is already high. Baseline 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 'Get current METAR for one or more airports as fully decoded JSON' and lists the decoded fields. It explicitly distinguishes from parsing raw METAR text, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 mentions saving agents from parsing raw METAR text, implying usage when decoded data is needed, but does not explicitly list alternatives (e.g., raw METAR tools like aviation.metar.current) or specify when not to use this tool. Moderate guidance.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's added behavioral context is limited (e.g., parsing into structured JSON). No contradictions.
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 succinct (two sentences), front-loads the tool's purpose, and omits unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description adequately explains the output format. No additional context is needed given the annotations and schema richness.
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 already provides full coverage (100%) with detailed constraints and examples for the only parameter (icao_codes). The description adds little beyond stating the output structure, which is not parameter-specific.
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 provides decoded TAF forecasts for airports, listing specific elements (issued time, valid window, per-period forecast objects). This distinguishes it from siblings like checkwx.metar.decoded (METAR) and aviation.taf.forecast (raw TAF).
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 indicates when to use this tool (for decoded TAF forecasts), and sibling names clarify alternatives. However, it lacks explicit statements about when not to use or direct comparisons to similar tools.
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, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it returns specific fields (username, country, title, etc.) but does not contradict annotations. Provides moderate additional context 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?
Two short sentences that directly state purpose and provide platform context. No filler, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present and a simple profile fetch, the description lists key return fields. No missing essential information for this tool's purpose.
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 has 100% coverage for the single `username` parameter in a detailed description. The tool description does not add any new meaning or constraints beyond what is already in the input 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?
Description starts with 'Get a Chess.com player's profile' – a clear verb and resource. Lists specific fields (username, country, title, etc.). Also distinguishes from Lichess platform, providing 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?
Only mentions distinction from Lichess, but does not guide when to use this tool versus sibling tools like chesscom.player.stats or chesscom.players.titled. No explicit when/when-not or alternatives within the same server.
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, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds valuable context about the specific data returned (ratings and records for all time controls) and the scope, which goes beyond the 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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the purpose and specify the returned data. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the core functionality, the specific time controls, and the returned metrics.
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 already provides 100% coverage with a detailed description of the username parameter (length, character set, examples). The tool description does not add further semantic value to the parameter.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'a Chess.com player's rating + record', and specifies the scope 'across all time controls' (rapid, blitz, etc.). It lists what is returned (highest rating, current rating, win/loss/draw counts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like chesscom.player.profile.
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 player stats but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like chesscom.player.profile or chesscom.players.titled. No context on prerequisites or typical 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 already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the default return range (10 years, adjustable 1-50) and source, which is useful but not extensive. 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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence is informative and necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description adequately covers source, data type, units, baseline, time range, and configurability. No missing context for effective 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?
The schema covers 100% of parameters, with the 'years' parameter description already including range and default. The description repeats this info but adds no new semantic depth 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 tool provides global surface temperature anomaly data from NASA GISS, specifying the baseline (1951-1980), unit (°C), time period (since 1880, monthly), and default range. It distinguishes itself from sibling climate indicators (e.g., CO2, methane) by being temperature-specific.
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 when to use (temperature anomaly queries) through specific content, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternative tools. However, the sibling context (other climate indicators) provides implicit differentiation.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating returned fields (e.g., high-res image URL, provider institution), but does not disclose potential edge cases like invalid IDs 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 two sentences: the first lists key returned fields, the second gives a direct usage instruction. It is front-loaded with purpose, contains no filler, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (though not shown) and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently informs about expected fields and the source of the required ID. For a simple single-record retrieval tool, no additional information is necessary.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema parameter description already includes examples and format. The main description merely restates the ID usage, adding minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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 retrieves 'full metadata for a single cultural heritage object' and lists specific fields (title, creator, etc.). It differentiates from sibling 'culture.europeana.search' by specifying it returns details for one object using an ID.
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 explicitly instructs to 'Use ID from search results (Europeana)', indicating the prerequisite step and proper context. It implies this tool is for post-search retrieval, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools for other 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 provide safety hints (readOnly, idempotent). The description adds return fields but no additional behavioral context like rate limits or date handling. It does not contradict 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 sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, then lists outputs. Efficient and focused.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and low complexity, the description is sufficient. It covers the tool's scope, inputs, and outputs 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?
The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the description adds minimal value. It mentions 'by name or ISO code' which aligns with schema, but does not clarify boolean defaults or provide new insights.
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 retrieves COVID-19 statistics for a specific country, listing the returned metrics (cases, deaths, etc.) and coverage of 215+ countries. It distinguishes from sibling tools like disease.covid.global and disease.covid.history through specificity.
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 country-level data but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. However, the name and listing parameters make intended usage clear.
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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by naming data sources (Worldometers, OWID), which implies potential data freshness or bias. 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 a single, well-structured sentence followed by a concise list of statistics. It is front-loaded with the primary action and no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists and schema descriptions cover all parameters, the description provides sufficient context about the data returned and its sources. No gaps for an agent to correctly invoke 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for its two boolean parameters, each with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter context beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 tool returns aggregated global COVID-19 statistics, listing specific metrics like total cases, deaths, recoveries, and sources (Worldometers, OWID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (disease.covid.country, disease.covid.history) by being global and aggregated.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. While the name implies global scope and outputs are listed, there is no direct guidance on selecting this over country-specific or historical variants.
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, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the data source (Johns Hopkins CSSE) but does not provide further behavioral details beyond what annotations offer. No 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value (what, returns, use case, source). No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (context indicates true), the description is sufficient. It covers the key return data, source, and use case, making it complete for a historical data retrieval 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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions for 'country' and 'lastdays'. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 tool gets historical time-series COVID-19 data for a country or globally, and specifies the return data types (daily case, death, recovery counts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like disease.covid.country and disease.covid.global by emphasizing 'historical' and 'time-series', making the purpose unambiguous.
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 mentions it is 'useful for trend analysis and longitudinal research', providing clear guidance on when to use it. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies differentiation for current data queries.
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, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying data is 'Updated weekly' and detailing the types of data returned, going beyond the annotations to inform about temporal freshness and output composition.
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 concise (two sentences) with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information: what the tool does, what data it returns, and update frequency. No filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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 optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers all necessary context: data source, update frequency, and content of results. No gaps remain for an agent to understand its 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?
The sole parameter 'source' is fully described in the input schema with enum values and a description. The tool's description does not add additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 'Get US influenza surveillance data from CDC FluView' with explicit output details (ILI activity levels, positive test rates, national summary), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like disease.covid.*.
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?
While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., disease.covid.* or health.clinical.*). The description implies contextual use for influenza data but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.
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, but the description adds that registration is instant and includes free WHOIS privacy. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.
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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with 'ACTION:'. It efficiently conveys key information, though the price list could be more structured. Still, it earns its place without verbosity.
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 (3 params), presence of annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, key features, and pricing. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., price examples for different TLDs) beyond schema definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 action (purchase and register a domain name), the resource (domain name), and provides specific examples of prices for different TLDs. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like check, info, list, and prices by focusing on registration.
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 this tool is for registering new domains (not checking availability or getting info). Context is clear, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for other operations.
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 context on data source (VIIRS, MODIS) and real-time updates, providing useful behavioral info beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, key data, and filtering options. No redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description still covers all essential aspects: input parameters (bounding box, days, source), output fields (lat/lon, brightness, confidence, power), and data freshness (near real-time). No gaps remain.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description briefly mentions filtering by bounding box and days, but does not add significant meaning beyond what is already in the input 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 explicitly states the tool detects active fire hotspots via NASA satellites, lists key output fields, and mentions filtering by bounding box and days. It is specific and distinct from any sibling tools.
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 fire hotspot data filtered by area and recency, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Given the lack of overlapping siblings, it is adequate but minimal.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context such as the return fields (title, ASIN, price, rating, Prime flag, image) and the list of supported marketplaces. No contradictions.
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 relatively concise, conveying purpose, filters, return fields, and marketplaces in one sentence plus a list. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient and 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?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, output schema not provided but description mentions return fields), the description covers purpose, parameters, output, and scope adequately. Missing explicit pagination or error handling, but acceptable for a search 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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description reiterates some parameter info (filter by price range, sort options) and adds the list of marketplaces, which is already partially in the schema description. Minimal added value beyond 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 tool searches Amazon products by keyword, lists filters (price range, sort order), and specifies return fields (title, ASIN, price, rating, Prime flag, image). It is distinct from sibling tools like ecommerce.amazon.deals or ecommerce.amazon.product.
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 keyword-based search with filtering and sorting, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings like ecommerce.amazon.deals or ecommerce.amazon.product. The context from sibling names helps, but explicit guidance is missing.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the data source (College Scorecard) and example fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or response format, which is acceptable given strong 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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, data fields, and ID sourcing. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to obtain the required ID.
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% and the parameter description already explains school_id is a UNITID with an example. The description adds that IDs come from college_search, which is helpful but not essential, so only marginal value beyond 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 tool gets detailed data for a US college by UNITID and lists example fields (admissions, costs, outcomes, earnings). It distinguishes from the sibling 'education.colleges.search' by mentioning getting IDs from that search.
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 explicitly guides the agent to first use college_search to obtain UNITIDs. It provides context on what data is returned (admissions rate, costs, etc.), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives beyond the search hint.
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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the list of returned data (authors, citations, abstract, etc.), which is helpful but not beyond what is expected for a retrieval tool.
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 tool's purpose and key details. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, output schema, and clear annotations, the description sufficiently covers expectations—listing the data categories returned.
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?
Input schema provides comprehensive description for the single parameter (including examples and source). The description reinforces that the ID comes from paper_search but adds minimal new meaning 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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves full details for an academic paper and specifies the identifier types (OpenAlex ID or DOI). It distinguishes from sibling tools like education.papers.search (which searches for papers).
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?
Explicitly says to use this when you have an OpenAlex ID or DOI, and to get IDs from paper_search. Implicitly suggests not using it for searching, as sibling search tools exist. Could be more explicit about alternatives.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by listing the specific return fields (system name, PWSID, etc.) and the data source (EPA Safe Drinking Water Act data), which enriches agent understanding 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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, scope, returned fields, and data source. No extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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 search with two parameters), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the data source. The annotations cover behavioral aspects. The existence of an output schema (as per context signals) further reduces the need for more detail.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('state' and 'limit'). The description does not add any extra detail about parameters (e.g., default limit of 10 is not mentioned). Since schema already covers them, a 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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'public water systems' with a specific scope 'by US state'. It lists the output fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Sibling tools like 'epa.environment.toxic_releases' are different, so no confusion.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of searching water systems by state is clear. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, which is acceptable for a straightforward search tool.
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, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context about global coverage and specific return fields, enhancing transparency. 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, front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words; every sentence provides substantive information: first on action and scale, second on filters and return fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description adequately covers functionality, filters, return fields, and coverage scope. It is complete for a read-only search 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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description reinforces that 'query' is for company name/ticker and that 'exchange_code' and 'security_type' are filters, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 searches over 300M+ financial instruments by name/ticker, with filters for exchange and security type, and specifies return fields (Bloomberg FIGI, ticker, name, market sector) and coverage (equities, ETPs, bonds, derivatives globally). It distinguishes from sibling tools like figi.finance.filter and figi.finance.map.
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 searching instruments by name/ticker and filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like figi.finance.filter or figi.finance.map. No direct comparison or exclusion guidance 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 already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and openWorld. Description adds context about source and CC0, and that results include taxonomic information, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond the 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides specific information (search scope, return fields, filter, source).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a search tool: it explains what is searched, what is returned, how to filter, and the data source. Given annotations and output schema exist, no gaps remain.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., 'by common or scientific name' and 'Filter by rank'), so baseline 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 it searches 9M+ species in the GBIF backbone taxonomy by common or scientific name, and lists specific return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like occurrence_count and species_details.
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?
It specifies when to use this tool (search by name) and mentions filtering by rank, but does not explicitly exclude usage or compare with alternatives like species_details for more detailed information.
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 readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds value by specifying the output format (coordinates + structured address) and data source, providing context beyond the 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 conveys the purpose without extraneous information. It front-loads the core action and includes relevant context (data source).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input types, output format, and data source. It is complete for a forward geocoding tool with five parameters.
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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described inline. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 tool converts addresses, place names, or landmarks to geographic coordinates with structured address data. It explicitly mentions the data source (Geoapify/OSM) and distinguishes from sibling tools like reverse geocoding and autocomplete.
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 use for forward geocoding but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., geo.address.reverse for reverse geocoding, geo.places.search for place search). No when-not-to-use guidance 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 already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the specific return fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. 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 sentence with 20 words, every part contributes to understanding. It includes necessary information (source/license) without unnecessary verbosity. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and a rich output schema (not shown but implied), the description is complete. Annotations cover safety aspects, and the description adequately explains what the tool does without requiring additional 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% coverage, with the description of the 'cep' parameter repeating the tool's main purpose. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as mention of optional dash. Baseline 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 tool's function: looking up a Brazilian address from an 8-digit CEP postal code, listing specific return fields (street, neighborhood, city, state, coordinates, timezone). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., gov.brasilapi.cnpj) by focusing on postal codes.
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?
While the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, its specific focus on CEP lookup and the context of sibling tools in the same domain make its usage clear. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is straightforward enough.
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 a read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds that data is aggregated to a 5km grid, returns top 30 zones, and a timestamp. It also mentions cache bypass via the 'refresh' parameter. No contradictions.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys essential information without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple data retrieval tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers what is returned (top 30 zones, timestamp) and the aggregation. No missing details.
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 single boolean parameter 'refresh' is fully described in the schema. The description adds that it 'bypasses cache' and 're-fetches the latest snapshot', which adds useful context 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 tool returns live taxi positions aggregated to a 5km grid, with the top 30 zones and a timestamp. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like air_quality or rainfall.
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 includes license information (LTA, SG Open Data Licence) but no context 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 already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds value by specifying the return structure (full HTML body or structured fields, related documents), which is beyond annotation scope.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (1 param), rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description comprehensively covers what the tool returns and how to use it. No obvious 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?
Only one parameter (base_path) with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description repeats the parameter's purpose but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema's example and usage hint.
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?
Description clearly states the tool fetches full content of a GOV.UK page by base path, listing specific return fields (title, publication date, organisation, HTML body, related documents). It's distinct from sibling tools like govuk.content.search which finds pages.
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?
Description implies usage after search by suggesting getting base path from 'govuk.search results', but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the OGL v3.0 license information, which is useful but not critical. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise: two sentences and a license tag. It front-loads the core purpose and provides essential context in a few words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, scope, and usage 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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add extra parameter details beyond the schema. The schema itself describes the refresh parameter well, so baseline 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 it lists the 43 UK police forces for England and Wales, providing id and name. It specifies the exact count and geographical scope, and distinguishes from sibling tools like crimes_near and outcomes.
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 indicates usage context: 'Used to drill down into per-force statistics.' This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.
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, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds valuable context by specifying the exact data fields (indications, dosage, warnings, interactions, contraindications) and the OpenFDA source, enhancing transparency 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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every element (verb, resource, fields, source) earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with a small number of parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It states the data source (OpenFDA) and key searchable fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters. Description does not add significant new meaning; it merely restates the search concept. Baseline score of 3 applies as schema already provides sufficient detail.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Search' with resource 'drug labeling data' and lists explicit fields (indications, dosage, warnings, interactions, contraindications). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like health.safety.drug_events and health.safety.food_recalls.
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?
Description mentions OpenFDA source but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor exclusions. Usage context is implied through listing of data fields.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Get open positions' is consistent. The description adds no contradictory information and aligns well with annotations, though it doesn't provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey.
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 of 8 words with no unnecessary information. It is concise and front-loaded with the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete enough. It adequately conveys the tool's function and input requirements, relying on structured fields for additional details.
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 schema coverage is 100% and the description mentions 'for a user wallet', matching the parameter 'user' with its schema description. However, the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 'Get open positions for a user wallet on Hyperliquid', specifying the verb (Get), resource (open positions), and context (user wallet, Hyperliquid). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hyperliquid.account.summary' or 'hyperliquid.markets.data'.
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 open positions but does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to use alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it retrieves market metadata and mid prices, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover. No 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 9-word sentence, front-loading the action and resource. No extraneous information; every word is meaningful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately conveys that the tool outputs market metadata and mid prices. No further elaboration is necessary.
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 fully describes the single optional parameter 'coin' with a description. The description mentions 'all perpetual pairs' which aligns with omitting the parameter, but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with defined resources: 'market metadata and mid prices for all perpetual pairs on Hyperliquid'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like hyperliquid.markets.klines and hyperliquid.markets.orderbook by specifying the data type and scope.
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 indicates usage for fetching metadata and mid prices, and the sibling names provide context for differentiation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as stating 'not for order book or klines data'.
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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond what the schema and annotations provide, but it does not 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 that is front-loaded and efficient. No wasted words, and it conveys the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only lookup tool, the description is complete. It specifies the lookup keys (id/query), return fields, and limit. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is not 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for id, query, and limit. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 tool looks up game companies by ID or name, listing specific return fields (description, country, game IDs, logos, websites). It is distinct from sibling tools like igdb.games.search and igdb.platforms.info.
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 specifies look up by ID or search by name, which implies usage context. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, the sibling tools target different resources (games, platforms), so the usage is clear.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the database size and the types of metadata returned (genres, platforms, ratings, etc.), which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose further behavioral traits like pagination, 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, informative sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Search') and immediately provides context (280K+ games, IGDB). Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low parameter count, high schema coverage, existence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose, data source, and the type of metadata available. No critical gaps are present for typical usage.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters (query and limit) well-documented in the schema. The description does not add new information about the parameters themselves, but it does indicate the richness of the output, indirectly justifying the query parameter. Baseline score 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 tool searches games, specifies the data source (IGDB/Twitch) and lists rich metadata fields (genres, platforms, ratings, cover art, release dates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like igdb.games.details and rawg.games.search by naming its scope.
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 searching games with comprehensive metadata but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like rawg.games.search or igdb.games.details. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that custom time ranges are supported and listing the metrics included. This provides behavioral context beyond what annotations offer, though no mention of authentication 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and included metrics. No extraneous words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists and annotations are thorough, the description effectively covers the tool's purpose and key capabilities. It explains what analytics are provided and mentions custom time ranges, which is sufficient for a read-only analytics tool.
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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'since' uses minutes ago and gives example values (-1440, -10080), which aids understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 'traffic analytics for a Cloudflare zone' and enumerates specific metrics (requests, cached vs uncached, bandwidth, threats, page views). This directly describes what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling Cloudflare tools like dns_create or purge_cache.
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 such as zone listing or DNS management tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
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, open-world. Description adds context about the data's use (trajectory prediction), which enhances understanding 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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and include key details (NORAD ID, use cases). No superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present (as per context signals), the description need not explain return values. It fully covers the tool's input and purpose for a simple get 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 coverage is 100% with the only parameter 'format' having a clear enum and description. Description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what schema provides, earning baseline 3.
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?
Description clearly states it gets the TLE set for ISS with NORAD ID, and explains the purpose (orbital parameters for trajectory prediction and tracking). Differentiates from sibling 'iss.space.position'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'iss.space.position'. The description implies use for TLE data but lacks direct comparison.
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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: returns title, company, location, salary, source, direct link, and mentions 9M+ active listings, providing context beyond the 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, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word adds value; no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (context signals confirm), the description fully explains input filters and output fields (title, company, location, salary, source, direct link). Combined with rich annotations, the description is complete for an agent to use the tool confidently.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions the main filter parameters (keywords, location, radius, salary, company_name) but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description clearly specifies 'Search aggregated job listings across 70+ countries' with filter options, differentiating from sibling job search tools like jobs.adzuna.search or jobs.reed.search by emphasizing Jooble's global aggregation and scale.
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 lists filterable fields (keywords, location, radius, salary, company name) implying when to use this tool for broad job searches, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope of 'global remote positions only' and lists returned fields, but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, or rate limits. Given the comprehensive annotations, the description provides adequate additional 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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and filters, the second outlines output fields and scope. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (confirmed by context signals), the description appropriately lists key returned fields without needing to detail return structure. It fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, filters, output summary, and source constraints (remote-only, Remotive). The limit parameter implies pagination, and the description is self-contained for an agent to correctly invoke 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?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description mentions filtering by keywords and category with example slugs, adding slight value beyond the schema. However, it does not provide deeper semantic meaning or usage tips beyond what is already in the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.
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 searches curated remote-only job listings from Remotive, with filtering by keywords and category. It lists the fields returned (title, company, salary, etc.), and explicitly distinguishes it from other job search tools by specifying 'global remote positions only'. This provides high purpose clarity and differentiates it from siblings like jobs.adzuna.search or jobs.reed.search.
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 indicates usage for remote job searches via keywords and categories. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the phrase 'curated remote-only job listings' combined with 'Global remote positions only (Remotive)' gives clear context that this tool is for remote positions from a specific source. The lack of explicit exclusion or alternative guidance prevents a 5.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully disclosed. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond data types, which is acceptable but does not elevate the 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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get US salary and employment timeseries data from BLS') and then specifies the types and dimensions. No redundant words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers source, data types, and dimensions. The schema handles parameter details. The tool is complete and well-integrated with structured fields.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is well-documented. The description does not add additional clarity beyond the schema's own descriptions, thus baseline score of 3 applies.
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 it retrieves US salary and employment timeseries data from BLS, specifying types (wage estimates, employment counts) and dimensions (SOC code, geography). It distinguishes itself from other job-related tools like jobs.adzuna.salary and jobs.occupations.details by unique source and data type.
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 explicitly mentions BLS as the source and timeseries data, which implies its use case. While it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings like jobs.adzuna.salary (non-BLS) or jobs.occupations.details (non-timeseries).
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the types of data returned (occupation descriptions, skills, ISCO codes, skill relationships), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a detailed input schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is fully complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage. It covers what the tool returns and how to identify resources.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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 retrieves ESCO resource details by URI, listing specific content (occupation descriptions, skills, ISCO codes, skill relationships). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'jobs.skills.search' which would be for searching resources.
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 does not include explicit usage guidelines or alternatives. The parameter description mentions 'Get URIs from esco_search', implying a workflow, but the main description lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the return fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, caching). Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate.
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 front-loads the core purpose and includes all essential information (variant list, return fields) without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for the tool's purpose: it explains the function, required input, and output format. The presence of annotations and an output schema (as per context) complements the description, leaving no 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%, and both parameters (nb, perf_type) have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter details beyond listing the variants again, so baseline 3 applies.
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 that the tool returns the top N players in a specified chess variant, listing all 13 variant options. It also specifies the return fields (username, rating, country), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 a clear, self-contained purpose but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or indicate when to use alternatives. However, the tool's specificity (top players by variant) implicitly differentiates it from other Lichess tools like 'lichess.user.profile'.
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, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that collections are public domain and returns slugs, but does not cover other behavioral aspects. 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and examples, no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and simple single-parameter input, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, output (slugs), and licensing. No gaps remain.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (limit) fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 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 tool browses Library of Congress digital collections, provides concrete examples (Civil War Photographs, Geography & Map Division, Rosa Parks Papers), and specifies the key output (collection slugs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like media.loc.item and media.loc.search.
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 mentioning collection slugs are needed for filtered search, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to siblings. Still, the hint about prerequisite for search is valuable.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits 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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the data it returns. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, full schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose and parameter semantics without needing additional details.
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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that chat_id can be a numeric ID or a @username. With 100% schema coverage, this extra context is helpful for correct parameter usage.
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 it retrieves Telegram chat info (title, type, description, member count, invite link, username). The verb 'get' and resource 'chat' are specific, and the listed fields distinguish it from sibling tools that send messages or perform other actions.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given the straightforward nature of the tool and the distinct sibling tools, usage is implied by 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 indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description reinforces this by describing it as a retrieval operation, but doesn't add significant behavioral context beyond the 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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and providing key guidance. Every word is useful with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the simple nature of the polling operation, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality. No additional context is needed for correct usage.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description's mention of offset usage adds minor value, but the schema already explains the parameters 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 tool retrieves recent incoming messages and events for the bot, specifying new messages, user info, and chat type. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like send_message or get_chat.
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 explicitly advises using the 'offset' parameter to get only new updates since the last check, providing clear polling guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about result fields (biography, country, etc.) and the scale (2M+ artists), providing moderate added 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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and output. No extraneous words, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a search endpoint with an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description sufficiently outlines the return fields (biography, country, tags, aliases). The agent has enough context to use the tool and interpret results.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add additional detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., query, limit, offset). Thus it meets the baseline but does not enhance 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 action ('Search for music artists by name'), the scope ('across 2M+ artists'), and the data returned ('biography, country, tags, aliases'). It also identifies the source (MusicBrainz). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like music.artists.details or music.recordings.search.
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 when to use (search by name) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, given the sibling tools and the specific naming, the usage context is clear.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns lyrics text, artist, title, and metadata, and uses the AudD API, but does not disclose 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 two sentences with examples, no wasted words, and front-loads the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-param schema, informative annotations, and presumed output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
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 100% coverage with a description similar to the tool description, but the tool description provides concrete query examples, adding meaning 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 tool searches for song lyrics by artist name, song title, or both, distinguishing it from sibling tools like music.audd.recognize or music.recordings.search.
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 through examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
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, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: analyzes audio fingerprint against 80M+ tracks, returns artist/title/album/release date plus Spotify/Apple Music links, and accepts various audio formats (MP3, WAV, OGG, etc.). This goes beyond annotations 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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose (first sentence) and add key details (fingerprint, output fields, supported formats) in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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 parameter), rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it works (fingerprinting), what it returns, and input constraints. It is fully adequate for an agent to correctly invoke 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?
The single 'url' parameter is fully described in the input schema (type, format, example). The description reiterates accepted formats and mentions the API's analysis capability, but adds minimal new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to 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 tool's purpose: 'Identify a song from an audio file URL — like Shazam for AI agents.' It specifies the verb (identify), resource (song from audio), and differentiates it from sibling music tools like music.artists.search or music.audd.lyrics by focusing on audio fingerprinting.
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 you have an audio URL to identify, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., lyrics lookup, artist details). The analogy to Shazam provides some context but is insufficient for clear decision-making.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about the specialized news source (NewsData.io) and filtering capabilities, enhancing transparency 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, well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every word adds value, 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.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 optional parameters, no required params) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It informs the agent about the specialized source and available filters, leaving no critical 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description briefly mentions filter options (coin, keyword, language) but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. A 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 identifies the tool as a cryptocurrency and blockchain news feed with specific filters (coin, keyword, language). It distinguishes itself from other news tools by specifying 'dedicated crypto news index from specialized sources (NewsData.io)', making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like news.global.latest.
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 crypto-specific news but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as news.global.latest or currents.news.*. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer 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 declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds output details (temperature, wind, etc.) but no new behavioral traits beyond those 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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output details. Every sentence adds value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (periods, fields), scope (US contiguous), and source. No 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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions that match the geographic bounds. The description repeats 'US contiguous only' but adds no new meaning 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?
Description clearly states 'Get 7-day weather forecast' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like noaa.weather.hourly and noaa.weather.observation by specifying 'day and night periods' and '7-day' scope.
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 clearly identifies when to use (for 7-day forecast) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use. The context is clear but lacks direct 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idlempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety traits. The description adds context about the returned fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits 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 sentence that immediately states the core action, followed by a concise list of key fields. No redundant words or filler, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. With only one parameter and a clear list of included data, the description fully satisfies the informational needs for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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% coverage, including a description for 'station_id' that explains its origin. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('detailed record for one specific alt-fuel station'), and enumerates distinct fields (operator info, address, hours, EV charging breakdown, payment methods, access restrictions). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like nrel.afdc.nearest and nrel.afdc.search which return lists of stations.
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 when to use (when you have a specific station ID and need full details) and mentions the ID source ('obtained from afdc_stations_nearest or afdc_stations_search results'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the record's contents (CVSS, CWE, etc.) but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as authentication needs or rate limits. With strong annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 sentences: first states purpose and contents, second gives a concrete example. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It lists the major fields present in the output, and the tool's simple input (single required parameter) makes it complete. Annotations further reduce the need for behavioral disclosure. Score 5 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% for cve_id, with a detailed format description. The description adds an example (CVE-2021-44228) and context, but this is marginal improvement over the schema. Baseline 3 is justified.
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 it fetches the canonical NVD record for a specific CVE-ID, listing key contents (description, CVSS, CWE, CPE, references). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by emphasizing specificity and 'canonical' record.
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 guides usage by focusing on a single CVE-ID and contrasting with the sibling nvd.cves.search tool (which would retrieve multiple). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with NVD.
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, idempotent, safe behavior. Description adds value by specifying the returned fields and sort order, which is beyond what annotations convey.
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?
One sentence conveying all essential information: what it does, key fields, and sorting. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but implied), the description covers the purpose, key fields, and sorting. It is complete for a list endpoint.
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 one unused parameter with clear description. Since schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is trivial, the description does not need to add more. Baseline 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 it lists professional Dota 2 teams with specific fields (rating, wins/losses, etc.) and sort order (rating descending). It is distinct from other opendota tools like matches or players.
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 use for retrieving team lists but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other opendota tools (e.g., for match details or player summaries). No alternatives or exclusions 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 it is not read-only nor destructive. Description adds value by specifying per-message cost ($0.25), the 'default unknown prefix' behavior, and that it is the highest tier. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single line with emojis and concise country lists. It front-loads the action and destination type, and includes cost and cross-reference. Could be slightly more structured, but 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 output schema exists (not shown but stated), description doesn't need to cover return values. It provides price and verification tip. The complexity of the tool is moderate and description covers essential intent and cost implications.
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 coverage is 100%, so schema descriptions fully cover all 4 parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states 'Send SMS to high-cost destinations' with specific country codes and regions. It distinguishes from sibling SMS tools (likely sms_na, sms_world) by specifying premium tier and covering unknown prefixes.
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?
Advises using telnyx.estimate_price to verify cost before sending, and implies it is for high-cost destinations only. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the list of countries and 'highest tier' signal appropriate 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?
The description reveals behavioral traits beyond annotations: it states the cost ($0.10/message) and that it returns HTTP 400 for wrong tiers. Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotence, which aligns with sending a message. The description adds value by disclosing specific error conditions and pricing, which are not in annotations.
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 concise (70 words) and front-loaded with the action and destination scope. It uses a clear format with country code examples and a note on error handling. Every sentence adds value, though the list could be slightly more tabular. No wasted words.
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 tool with 4 parameters and an output schema (present), the description covers purpose, geographical scope, pricing, and error conditions. It lacks explicit mention of success response format, but the output schema likely provides that. It also omits rate limits or delivery guarantees, but given the sibling differentiation and schema richness, it is fairly complete.
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 already describes all parameters well (E.164 format, required vs optional). The description adds a list of example country codes, which indirectly clarifies the 'to' parameter's allowed values but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.
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 it sends SMS to international destinations with a verb-action pairing ('Send SMS') and specifies the resource (world destinations). It lists example country codes and differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming the alternative tools for NA and premium tiers.
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 explicit guidance on when not to use this tool: when the destination is in NA or premium tiers, instructing the agent to use send_sms_na or send_sms_premium. It also mentions the cost per message. However, it does not elaborate on prerequisites beyond what the schema parameters cover (e.g., owning a Telnyx number).
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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the output (APR rates, recommended actions, lender comparisons) beyond the annotations, though it does not mention 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?
Two sentences deliver the core purpose and filter capabilities without redundancy. Every word contributes to clarity, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. It explains what is returned and the available filters, leaving no critical gaps for a read-only 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description reiterates the filter parameters without adding new semantics (e.g., specific CLTV thresholds or valid state codes). Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high and no extra meaning is added.
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 gets a HELOC rate decision, specifies the resource (Home Equity Line of Credit), and lists the returned data (APR rates, recommended actions, lender comparisons). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rateapi.lending.auto by focusing on HELOC exclusively.
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 HELOC rate queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., rateapi.lending.mortgage). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.
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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds moderate value by listing returned fields (e.g., ratings, Metacritic score). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about the response content.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every element is necessary and efficiently communicated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to invoke it, and what it returns. No gaps remain.
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 coverage and a single parameter well-described in the schema (ID or slug with examples), the description adds little beyond the schema. It restates 'by ID or slug' but not uniquely valuable, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 retrieves full game details using an ID or slug, listing specific fields like description, platforms, genres, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rawg.games.search (search) and rawg.games.screenshots (media) by focusing on detailed metadata.
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 use when you need comprehensive game details after obtaining an ID or slug, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not guidance. The clear purpose and context from sibling names compensate, earning a 4 for clear context without 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds the list of stores but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already 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 sentence that immediately provides the key action and result. It lists major stores without unnecessary details, making it highly efficient. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and the stores included. There are no gaps in understanding what the tool returns.
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 covers the sole parameter 'id' with a description ('RAWG game ID or slug'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add new semantic information about the parameter, 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'purchase/download links for a game across stores', listing specific stores (Steam, PlayStation Store, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rawg.games.details and rawg.games.search, which serve different purposes.
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 when to use the tool (when needing store links for a game), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The context of sibling tools provides some differentiation, but direct guidance is missing.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns PDB IDs with relevance scores and describes the database, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits 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 two sentences, front-loading the action and scope. Every word is informative; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return format. The presence of an output schema means the description need not elaborate on return values beyond mentioning relevance scores.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It does mention search types (keyword, protein name, organism, author) which aligns with the query parameter description, but adds no new semantic meaning.
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 it searches 220K+ structures by keyword, protein name, organism, or author and returns PDB IDs with relevance scores. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like science.pdb.ligand, science.pdb.sequence, and science.pdb.structure which serve different purposes.
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 using this tool (when you need to search the PDB by various criteria), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.
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, idempotentHint true. The description adds value by enumerating the exact fields returned (title, method, resolution, etc.), which is behavioral context 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key fields, and the second sentence adds a use case. Every part is necessary and without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality. It tells the agent what to expect and what it returns, leaving no important 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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description for pdb_id including examples. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, maintaining the baseline score.
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 explicitly states 'Get full details for a 3D protein structure by PDB ID' and lists specific fields (title, method, resolution, etc.), making the purpose clear and differentiated from sibling tools like science.pdb.ligand or science.pdb.search.
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 says 'Essential for drug design and structural analysis' but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools. The context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks direct guidance on 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond stating it finds similar pages. No mention of rate limits, pagination, or error handling, but annotations cover the 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 sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. The description adequately informs the agent of its purpose and unique value, making it complete for effective tool selection.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no further param details; it implicitly references the 'url' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's function: finding web pages semantically similar to a given URL. It distinguishes itself from other search tools by emphasizing semantic similarity and the unique capability for research agents.
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 context on when to use ('discover related content, competitors, alternatives without knowing what to search for') and notes it's a 'unique capability for research agents'. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, which would strengthen guidance.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns a safe score (0-100) and detailed warnings, which is useful but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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 three sentences with no wasted words: function, output, use case. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. Ideal for quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input (one required domain string) and presence of an output schema, the description, schema, and annotations together provide complete context. It explains input, output, and when to use. No 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema description already explains the domain parameter and return value. The tool description reinforces the same information but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 tool checks if a domain is associated with malware, phishing, or other threats, and returns a safe score and warnings. It distinguishes from siblings like security.threatintel.infrastructure by focusing on domain-based threat detection, and the title 'Malware & Phishing Check' is specific.
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 explicitly recommends use for 'URL safety verification before agent navigation,' providing clear context. While it does not list exclusions or alternatives, the sibling tools (e.g., security.threatintel.reputation) imply different scopes, but no explicit when-not-to-use is given.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the data being from the Smithsonian CC0 subset and lists returned fields, but does not reveal any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already 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 consists of two concise sentences. The first enumerates returned fields, and the second provides critical usage guidance. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and essential fields. The tool's simplicity (single parameter) and the presence of annotations make the description sufficiently complete.
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?
There is only one parameter (id) with schema description coverage at 100%. The schema already explains the parameter's purpose and format, including example IDs and the instruction to use smithsonian.search first. The description adds minimal extra meaning 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 tool retrieves the full record for a Smithsonian Open Access item by ID, listing key fields (title, unit code, license, etc.). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool smithsonian.search by instructing to use search first to find IDs.
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 explicitly instructs to use smithsonian.search to find IDs first, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the number of bodies, return fields, and data source but does not disclose additional behavioral traits 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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes all essential details (what it lists, returned fields, count, filter, source) without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter, the description covers the purpose, output fields, data volume, filter option, and source license. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
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 already covers the single parameter (body_type) with description and enum. The description only mentions 'Filter by type', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.
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 it lists solar system bodies (planets, moons, etc.) and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'solar.system.body_details' tool by focusing on a broad list rather than individual details.
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 use for listing basic body information and filtering by type, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the sibling detail tool. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the description only adds context about returned fields and the data source. It does not mention rate limits or errors, but this is acceptable given the 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 sentence that front-loads the action and lists all fields concisely. There is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a single well-described parameter, full safety annotations, and an output schema (implied), the description lists all return fields and the data source, making it complete for a simple lookup 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 coverage is 100% and the description repeats the schema's examples. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specifies the verb 'Get comprehensive data' and the resource 'solar system body', listing all returned fields. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'solar.system.bodies' which is for listing bodies.
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 the need for a prior search to obtain the body ID (e.g., from 'solar.system.bodies'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds context about returned fields but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination.
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 sentences with no redundant information. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description, combined with the schema and presence of an output schema, gives the agent all needed information: what the tool does, how to filter, and what fields are returned. No gaps.
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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by listing the output fields (conference, division, city, abbreviation) that are not in the input schema, helping the agent understand what data is returned.
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 the resource 'NBA and NFL teams', and specifies the output fields (conference, division, city, abbreviation). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like sports.basketball.games and sports.bdl.players by focusing purely on team data.
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 using the tool when you need team information, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it. No comparison to alternatives is provided, though there are no directly competing sibling tools for teams.
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 and destructiveHint=false, establishing safe read-only behavior. The description adds scale (2000+ leagues, 171 countries) and mentions live scores, but does not provide additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already 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 no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with filtering options and scale, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, filtering capabilities, and scale. The annotations confirm safety, completing the context for a read-only query 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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description reiterates filtering by date, league, and team but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions.
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 provides football/soccer fixtures, live scores, and results with filtering by date, league, and team. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sports.football.leagues and sports.football.standings by specifying the focus on match events and scores.
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 obtaining fixtures and scores with filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives. However, the sibling tool names (leagues, standings) make the differentiation clear based on 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 declare readOnlyHint (true), destructiveHint (false), idempotentHint (true). The description adds return field details but no behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. No contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description sufficiently covers return fields and connects to sibling tools. No gaps for a search 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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description repeats 'country or name' but adds no new semantic details. Baseline 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 tool searches football leagues and cups by country or name, specifies return fields (ID, name, type, country, logo), and hints at usage with sibling tools. This distinguishes it effectively from sports.football.fixtures and sports.football.standings.
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 explains to search by country or name and recommends using IDs for fixtures and standings queries. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an AI agent.
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 safe read operation. The description adds context about returned content (headlines, source, summary, images) and data provider (Finnhub), exceeding what annotations convey.
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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with one optional param; description explains output features and source. Output schema exists, so no need to detail return values.
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 covers parameter fully with enum. Description merely restates categories, adding no new meaning beyond 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 'General market news' with specific categories, distinguishing it from company-specific news tools like 'stocks.company.news'.
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 use for broad market news but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like 'stocks.company.news' or provide 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 indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds data source (EU TEDB) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only query tool, description fully covers purpose, usage, and data source. Output schema exists, so return format is not needed.
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. Description repeats the optional country_code behavior without adding new meaning, so baseline score applies.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and specific resource 'current VAT rates for EU countries' with types of rates listed. It differentiates from sibling tools (currencies, validate) by specifying EU VAT rates.
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?
Description explains how to query one country via country_code or omit for all EU members. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but context is clear.
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 a read-only, safe, idempotent operation. The description adds value by explaining the recommendation basis (genres, themes, cast), which is not covered by annotations. It discloses the behavioral trait of similarity criteria.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and detailed annotations, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, key input (movie ID), and recommendation basis. No additional information is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
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 full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all three parameters. The description only adds that the tool is 'based on a movie ID', which is already clear from the schema. No new parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema already offers.
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 retrieves movie recommendations based on a movie ID, specifying it uses similar genres, themes, and cast. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Similar Movies'), and is distinct from sibling tools like search, details, etc.
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 getting movie recommendations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search, discover, trending). No exclusions or context for when not to use it are given.
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 the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the filtering mechanism and output fields (trend name, search query, rank). It provides example WOEIDs, enhancing transparency 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?
Two compact sentences: the first states the primary purpose and the second adds filtering details and examples. No unnecessary words, front-loaded for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema (implied by context), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, filtering method, return fields, and common WOEID values. No gaps for typical usage.
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 schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter woeid, including examples. The description repeats the filtering purpose and examples but adds minimal extra meaning 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 tool gets current trending topics on Twitter/X, specifies filtering by WOEID, and lists return fields (trend name, search query, rank). It distinguishes from siblings like twitter.tweets.search and twitter.users.* through the specific focus on trends.
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 implicitly indicates when to use (to get trending topics) but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives. It provides filter instructions but lacks guidance on alternative tools for different Twitter queries.
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 the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exact fields returned (full scheme breakdown, scores, inspection date, local authority code, business type taxonomy), providing transparency 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, informative sentence that avoids redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool, though a slight restructuring could improve readability.
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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and scope, though it could explicitly mention that the ID is obtained from search results.
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 only one parameter with a comprehensive description (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 uses specific verbs ('record', 'breakdown') and explicitly lists the types of scores (hygiene/structural/management) and other details. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling search tool by emphasizing 'full scheme breakdown' and 'exact inspection date'.
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 that the tool is used after obtaining an FSA ID from 'establishment_search' results. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context of sibling tools (search vs. detail) provides sufficient guidance.
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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds the source 'UPCitemdb' and lists returned fields. Does not disclose rate limits or latency. Adds moderate 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?
Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action and barcode types. Every piece of information is relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (confirmed by context signals), the description adequately explains what the tool returns. No critical gaps for a simple lookup 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 coverage is 100% with a good description of the 'upc' parameter including examples. Description does not add any further semantics, meeting baseline.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'look up' and resource 'product by UPC, EAN, GTIN, or ISBN barcode', distinguishing it from sibling 'upc.products.search' which likely searches by other criteria. The description lists returned fields, making purpose unambiguous.
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 use when you have a barcode to look up, but does not explicitly mention that for broader searches one should use 'upc.products.search' instead. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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, idempotentHint. Description adds details about included fields (benefits, security clearance, etc.) but no behavioral traits beyond annotations. No 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?
Single front-loaded sentence enumerating returned content. No wasted words; essential information present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, and description details expected fields (full description, qualifications, duties, benefits, instructions, security, telework). No missing critical information for this tool's purpose.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema already describes it fully (digits-only string, example). Description adds little beyond restating 'by control number.' Baseline 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?
Clearly states 'Get full detail for a specific federal job posting by control number' and enumerates specific content (description, qualifications, duties, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling usajobs.jobs.search which lists jobs.
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?
Implicitly indicates use after obtaining a control number from search results, but lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' or 'do not use for listing.' Purpose is clear enough for correct selection.
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 safe readonly behavior. The description adds value by noting the output includes exact UTC timestamps, approximately 50 phases per year, and cites the authoritative US Naval Observatory source. This provides useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention potential performance 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 consists of two short, information-dense sentences. The first conveys the core functionality and output specifics; the second adds credibility and source. Every word earns its place, and there is no verbosity or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient context: what phases are returned, timestamps, approximate count, and data provenance. It covers the essential details for correct invocation without needing additional explanation.
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% coverage for the single 'year' parameter (with description). The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond restating 'for a year'. Since the schema already documents the parameter well, a 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 it retrieves all moon phase dates for a year, listing the four phases (New Moon, First Quarter, Full Moon, Last Quarter) with exact UTC timestamps. This specific verb+resource makes the purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from other astronomical tools like seasons or sun/moon data.
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 obtaining moon phase dates but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus siblings like usno.astronomy.seasons or usno.astronomy.sun_moon. The context is clear enough for a simple query, so it meets the minimal bar but lacks comparative 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal new behavioral context (e.g., data source 'US Naval Observatory'), but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or authentication. With annotations providing strong coverage, the description's incremental value is limited, earning a 3.
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 wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose (equinox/solstice dates and times), and the second efficiently adds perihelion/aphelion and the authoritative source. Every sentence provides essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, output schema exists). The description covers all returned events, the source, and the applicable year range (implicitly via schema). Given the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete for an agent to understand what the tool offers and when to use it.
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% coverage for the single parameter 'year', including a description and constraints. The tool description merely restates 'for any year' without adding new semantics or usage nuance. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully documents the parameter.
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 provides exact dates and UTC times for specific astronomical events: vernal equinox, summer solstice, autumnal equinox, winter solstice, plus perihelion and aphelion. The verb 'Get' and resource list make the purpose unambiguous, and the specific events differentiate it from sibling tools like moon phases.
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 explicitly says 'for any year', indicating the primary usage context. It does not directly compare to sibling tools (e.g., usno.astronomy.moon_phases), but the specificity of events implicitly guides selection. A brief note on when not to use it (e.g., for moon phases) would improve clarity, but current clarity is sufficient for an agent.
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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description's added behavioral context is minimal (only 'Source: USNO'). No contradiction, but no extra 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?
Three concise sentences: main outputs, twilight types, and use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists, so return values are documented. The description covers inputs, outputs, and usage context. For a simple query tool with full annotation coverage, this is complete.
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% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (date, latitude, longitude). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so a 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset, transit times, and twilight types. It distinguishes from siblings like moon_phases and seasons by specifying solar and lunar rise/set data plus twilight.
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 use cases: photography golden hour, agriculture planning, outdoor events. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool.
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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the behavioral safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral information beyond what annotations provide, but it does not contradict them. The bar is lower here due to rich 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, information-dense sentence with an appended note about obtaining IDs. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple detail retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and how to get the input. No gaps remain.
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 coverage for the single parameter 'id' is 100%, and the schema description already includes an example and source guidance. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 uses a specific verb ('Get full details') and a concrete resource ('car listing by ID'), and lists the exact data fields returned (VIN, price, MSRP, etc.). It also explicitly references the sibling tool vehicle.carmarket.search as the source for listing IDs, distinguishing this tool from others.
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 clearly states when to use this tool (when you have a listing ID) and directs the user to the sibling tool for obtaining IDs. It does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.
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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the data returned (VIN, price, miles, dealer info, Carfax status, days on market) and the source (MarketCheck). It also mentions radius limits on free tier, which is useful 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action and key filters. Every sentence adds essential information with no fluff. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (12 parameters, high schema coverage, output schema exists, annotations provided), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and key constraints. The agent has sufficient information to use it correctly.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description reiterates key parameters (make, model, year, price range, miles, zip, radius) and adds context like US-only and free tier radius limit (max 100 miles). This adds marginal value over 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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'US car listings'. It specifies millions of active listings and filters by make, model, year, etc. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'vehicle.carmarket.listing' which likely handles individual listings.
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 searching car listings in the US but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vehicle.carmarket.listing' or 'vehicle.vin.decode'. No guidance on when not to use it 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 already provide readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open world hints. The description adds the data source (NHTSA) but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.
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 action, no redundant words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple, parameters are fully described in schema, output schema exists, and annotations are comprehensive, the description is adequate. It adds data source and optionality context.
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?
Schema descriptions cover both parameters. The description adds the explicit example 'Honda 2024' and indicates optionality ('a make and/or year'), which is not fully captured by schema alone.
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 lists vehicle models for a make and/or year, with an explicit example (Honda 2024). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like VIN decoding or safety recalls.
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 make/year is known, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No reference to sibling tools is given.
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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds specificity about returned data (e.g., daily min/max, humidity, UV index) but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits or edge cases.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and capabilities without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description and annotations fully cover the tool's functionality. It lists all important return fields and clarifies the location input, making it complete for 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('q' and 'days'). The description lists output data points but does not add meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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 it retrieves a 3-day weather forecast and lists specific data points (min/max temp, conditions, wind, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like current weather or astronomy.
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 multi-day forecasts and mentions accepting any location query, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like current conditions or astronomy 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'No auth, free' context beyond annotations but does not explain rate limits, error behavior, or other operational 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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, results, and access details. No redundant or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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 required parameter, free, read-only), the description adequately covers what it does, the input, and the free/no-auth nature. An output schema exists for detailed return structure.
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%, and the schema already provides detailed guidance (e.g., 'Do not include https://'). The tool description adds no new semantic info beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline score.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'SSL/TLS certificate for any domain'. It lists specific details returned (validity, issuer, expiry, etc.) and mentions the service (ssl-checker.io), distinguishing it from similar siblings like whoisjson.ssl.check.
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 notes 'No auth, free (ssl-checker.io)', implying ease of use and cost advantage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or any 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 declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds context that returns nutrients per 100g but does not detail pagination or error handling. Adequate given 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 sentences, front-loaded with key action and examples, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, parameter schema is complete, description covers purpose and return structure. Complete for a simple search 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both name and limit. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
Clearly states the verb (search), resource (food ingredients), and return values (calories, protein, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tools (exercise tools) by domain.
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?
Provides context by comparing to USDA FDC ('Complements USDA FDC with broader international coverage'). Does not explicitly state when to use or not use, but gives a helpful comparison.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by listing the specific data fields returned (registrar, dates, nameservers, etc.) and the coverage scale, enhancing the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, specific data points, and scope. No wasted words; every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete for a read-only lookup tool. It explains the return fields and coverage, meeting the agent's needs to decide when to invoke this 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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to since the schema is sufficiently detailed.
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 starts with a clear verb 'Get' followed by the resource 'WHOIS registration data', then lists specific data fields (registrar, dates, nameservers, etc.) and quantifies coverage (374M+ domains, 7,596 TLDs), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like whois.dns.lookup.
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 the tool is for retrieving WHOIS data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like whois.domain.availability or whois.domain.reverse. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions 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 already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint. Description adds that it is free and no auth, and lists return fields. No contradictions, but the description does not add substantial behavioral insight 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?
Two sentences: first states the core action and what data is returned, second adds scale and cost context. No redundant words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description does not need to detail return format. It covers the tool's purpose, scope, and behavioral annotations adequately. Simple tool with sufficient documentation.
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 coverage is 100% for the 'name' parameter. The description reiterates that the tool searches by name but adds no new parameter details. It does list the data fields returned, which gives additional context to the parameter's effect.
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 searches for a country by name and lists the data fields returned (population, area, capital, etc.). It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among many siblings, none of which are country search tools.
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 context such as '250+ countries', 'No auth, free', implying it's the go-to tool for country information. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given no direct sibling, it is adequate.
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 readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with a report generation task. The description adds actionable behavioral details: the system crawls the site (non-destructive read operation), takes ~2 minutes, and incurs a cost ($29.99). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful operational insight beyond what annotations offer.
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, well-structured paragraph with no redundant information. Each sentence adds value: action, input example, process summary, output hint, timing, and cost. The use of an action emoji and clear formatting makes it scannable 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?
Given the tool's complexity (crawling, analysis, scoring), the description covers input, process, output (report_id for polling), time, and cost. Output schema exists (not shown but implied by polling instructions). It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but the overall information is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
There is one parameter (target_url) with 100% schema description coverage. The schema description already thoroughly explains the parameter's purpose and format. The tool description reiterates the URL example but does not add significant new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema covers everything.
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: 'Start a full AI market intelligence report for any website.' It specifies the verb (start), resource (market report), and target (any website). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like aipush.market.report_status (polling) and other analysis tools, making selection unambiguous.
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: provide a URL, the system crawls, identifies competitors, etc., returns report_id for polling, and mentions approximate time (2 minutes) and cost ($29.99). It implicitly tells when to use (when a market report is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. This is adequate for most scenarios.
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?
Discloses idempotent behavior (matches annotation), DNS_NOT_VERIFIED return, automatic MIP and SSL start. Adds context beyond annotations 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Efficient, no wasted sentences, front-loaded with action. Slightly longer due to thoroughness, but every sentence is useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the entire setup process, including error handling (DNS not configured), retry logic, polling, and next steps (generate_page). Reference to sibling tools enhances 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The description restates parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 registers a website for AI marketing, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by outlining the setup workflow.
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?
Provides explicit steps: call with domain and target URL, handle DNS instructions, retry after DNS setup, poll status, then use generate_page. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the workflow is clear.
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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns audio duration when completed, which is useful behavioral context 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, input, output, and status values. No redundant information.
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 nature of a status check, the description covers key aspects: input, possible statuses, and output when completed. The presence of an output schema and annotations further fills gaps, though error handling or polling guidance could be mentioned.
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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description and example for transcript_id. The description adds minimal additional semantics beyond reinforcing that it's for transcription jobs.
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 'Check the status of a transcription job by transcript_id' with specific statuses (queued, processing, completed, or error). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audio.transcribe.submit (which initiates jobs) and audio.transcribe.result (which likely retrieves final transcripts).
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 after submitting a job and clarifies input (transcript_id) and output (status, duration). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the intended use clear.
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 and idempotent. The description adds that it returns 'latest parsed' data and is a composite, providing behavioral context beyond annotations 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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then adds a valuable usage hint, with no extraneous words.
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 single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's role, mentioning the combined data types. Minor omission: no mention of error handling for invalid ICAO codes.
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 covers 100% of parameters with a clear description and examples for 'icao_code'. The description does not add significant extra meaning, so baseline 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 it provides a 'Composite report for one airport' including 'latest parsed METAR + TAF + station info', the verb 'get summary' is implied, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'cheaper than three separate calls'.
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?
It explicitly explains when to use this tool ('if you need the full picture') and mentions cost savings over individual calls, but does not explicitly advise against using it for partial data needs.
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, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the data source ('American Community Survey 5-year estimates'), coverage (all states, counties, sub-counties), and update frequency ('updated annually'), which is valuable beyond the 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 concise with three focused sentences. It front-loads the core function, then adds scope, source, and attributes. No wasted words.
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 query tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It includes source, coverage, and data fields. It could mention the default year but the schema does that.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about parameters, only that FIPS codes are used. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 tool returns population counts for US geographies by FIPS code, specifying 'total, male, female'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like census.data.demographics and census.data.economic by focusing solely on population data.
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 its use for population data queries, but does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or provide alternatives. Given the sibling tools have names like 'demographics' and 'economic', the differentiation is clear, but no exclusion guidance is given.
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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. Description adds data source (NOAA ESRL), measurement unit (ppb), monthly frequency, and default time range. No contradictions. Some behavioral context 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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, efficient structure. No unnecessary words.
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-only tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers key aspects. Could optionally mention return format but not essential.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter description. Description reinforces default 10 years and monthly nature, adding context beyond schema baseline.
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 it provides atmospheric nitrous oxide concentration from NOAA ESRL, monthly readings in ppb since 2001, and default 10 years. It distinguishes from sibling climate indicators by naming the specific gas.
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 N2O data but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of context 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 already declare read-only and idempotent; description adds value by listing return fields and CC0 filtering, 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then special features, then returns and sibling link. No unnecessary words.
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?
Good coverage for a search tool: purpose, filters, return fields, sibling reference. Output schema exists, so not needing return format details.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters; the description adds minimal extra beyond schema, so baseline 3.
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?
Description clearly states the tool searches 64,000+ artworks by keyword, artist, type, or department, and distinguishes from sibling cma.art.details for full details.
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?
Explicitly mentions when to use cma.artwork for full details, indicating this tool is for search/summary. No explicit when-not-to-use but context is clear.
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 return fields and scale (86K+ MCP repos) but could mention API 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?
Two sentences that are concise, front-loaded with key actions, and include useful statistics 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?
With good annotations and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is complete enough for a straightforward search tool. It covers purpose, results, and sort options.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 tool searches GitHub repositories by keyword, language, stars, and topics, and lists returned fields and sort options. It distinguishes itself from siblings like developer.github.repo (specific repo details) and developer.github.user (user info).
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 makes the use case obvious (searching repos) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives. The context of sibling tools helps, but lacks 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds 'multi-page support (Diffbot)', which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
One sentence, perfectly sized, with all key information front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values. It covers extracted fields and multi-page support. For a read-only tool with rich schema and annotations, this is 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'multi-page support', loosely linking to the paging parameter, but does not explain timeout or maxTags. Minimal added value over 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 explicitly states 'Extract article text, author, date, tags, sentiment, and images from any blog or news URL', providing a specific verb (Extract) and resource (article content). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like diffbot.products.extract (for products) and diffbot.pages.analyze (general pages) by focusing on articles.
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 blog or news URLs with multi-page support. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling names provide context. Slightly lacking in exclusion 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?
Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: headless Chrome rendering, temporary download URL, and customization options. 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?
Two compact sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action ('Convert HTML content to a PDF document') followed by key features and output 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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input, process, and output (temporary download URL). It explains the rendering engine and customization options, though could mention authentication or file size limits if applicable.
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 parameters. The description mentions customizable options (page size, margins, headers/footers) which maps to the 'options' parameter but adds minimal new detail 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 tool converts HTML to PDF using headless Chrome, with full CSS/JS rendering and customization. It specifies the input (HTML content) and output (temporary download URL). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'document.pdf.from_url' which converts from a URL.
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 this tool is for direct HTML content, contrasting with sibling 'document.pdf.from_url'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites like file size limits.
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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds output specifics (status, prices) but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication.
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 front-loaded purpose and return values. No filler; every sentence adds information.
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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, output fields, and domain scope. Minor omission: explicit mention of multiple domain checking per call.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by providing example comma-separated domains and clarifying TLD support, which exceeds schema description.
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?
Description clearly states verb ('Check'), resource ('domain names available for registration'), and scope ('all TLDs'). Distinguishes from siblings by specifying output (availability status, registration/renewal price).
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?
Description implicitly indicates when to use (before registration) but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions. Context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate 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 are present and the description adds behavioral context beyond them, such as the requirement for a verified sender domain and the monthly email limit. 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, key features, and constraints. No unnecessary information.
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 (6 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context, requirements, and limits 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for its 6 parameters. The description mentions 'plain text or HTML body' and 'multiple recipients', which aligns with the schema but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (send transactional email) and lists key features (plain text or HTML, multiple recipients, reply-to). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like 'email.transactional.status' which is for checking status.
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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires verified sender domain') and a usage limit ('3,000 free emails/month'), which help guide appropriate usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
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, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable details on specific checks performed (SMTP, DNS, etc.) and notes the API provider, 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?
Two sentences with no fluff: first sentence states purpose and lists checks, second adds result description and source. 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?
An output schema exists, so the description's generic 'returns comprehensive verification result' is adequate. The list of checks provides sufficient context for the tool's capability.
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 coverage is 100% and includes an example format. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, but the schema alone is sufficient for the single parameter.
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 'Verify an email address' and enumerates specific checks (SMTP, DNS/MX, disposable detection, etc.), precisely defining the tool's function and distinguishing it from siblings.
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 use but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like email.validation.check or specify when not to use it.
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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by listing specific data fields (PM2.5, PM10, O3, etc.) and mentioning the data source (IQAir AirVisual) and scale (30,000+ stations). No contradictions.
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 front-loads key information (real-time AQI, pollutants) and efficiently includes data source and scale. No extraneous words.
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?
The description covers return data fields and source. With annotations and output schema existence, it is largely complete. Minor omission: no mention of rate limits or pagination, but not critical for this 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?
Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description lists return fields but does not significantly augment parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.
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 explicitly states it provides real-time AQI, pollutant concentrations, and other weather data for any city worldwide. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool environment.airquality.nearest by focusing on city-based queries.
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 makes it clear that this tool is for city-based air quality data, implying use when a specific city is known. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like environment.airquality.nearest.
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 and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by listing returned fields (name, address, county, industry sector, closed status) and the data source, enhancing transparency beyond 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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, listing outputs, and providing scale/source. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.
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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and key outputs. It mentions the source and scale. However, it could clarify parameter interaction (e.g., zip overrides state) and whether results are paginated (though limit parameter exists).
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 100% schema description coverage, the description summarizes filtering by state or ZIP and implies the override behavior (ZIP overrides state). This adds context beyond the individual parameter descriptions within 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 tool searches EPA Toxic Release Inventory facilities by US state or ZIP code. It specifies the resource (TRI facilities) and the filtering dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like epa.environment.water_systems.
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 searching facilities by location but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It mentions '600K+ regulated facilities' as context but lacks direct 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?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by enumerating return fields (address, coordinates, connector types, power, operator, status) and explicitly mentions the min_power_kw filter for fast charging, providing behavioral context beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and key filters. It is concise with no redundant information. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's functionality.
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 10 optional parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the search functionality, return fields, and key filtering options. It mentions the data source (Open Charge Map) but could explicitly note pagination behavior or limit defaults more clearly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds context by naming specific connector types (Type 2, CCS, CHAdeMO) and mentioning 'min power for fast charging', which elaborates on the min_power_kw parameter. This adds value 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 tool searches 300K+ EV charging stations worldwide with specific filters (location, country, operator, connector type, power level), and names the return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like ev.charging.nearby and ev.charging.details by emphasizing the comprehensive database and multiple filter options.
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 clear context through the mention of '300K+' stations, 'Largest open EV charging database', and filter options, implying broad applicability. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ev.charging.nearby or ev.charging.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 already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds value by specifying the browsing nature ('Browse instrument universe by structured criteria') and data source ('Bloomberg OpenFIGI'), enhancing transparency 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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and key details are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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 (3 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the filter criteria, and hints at the scope (browsing instrument universe). No major gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds example values for exchange_code (e.g., US, LN) and lists possible values for market_sector and security_type, which provides helpful context beyond the schema descriptions.
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: filtering financial instruments by specified criteria (exchange code, market sector, security type). It distinguishes from sibling tools like figi.finance.map and figi.finance.search by focusing on structured filtering and browsing.
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 filtering by specific attributes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context of sibling tools is present but not referenced in the description.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description's burden is lower. The description adds 'EIA public domain', which is useful but not behavioral. No behavioral traits beyond annotations are disclosed, and there is no 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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a brief note. It front-loads the core purpose ('Spot prices for crude oil and petroleum products') and includes only essential details. Every word is justified, with no 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 simplicity (5 parameters, no required, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It covers the data source (EIA), product scope, and frequencies. It does not mention pagination or return format, but the output schema fills that gap. A small gap is the lack of note on data availability or update frequency, but overall sufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing example product codes and frequencies, making the parameters more actionable. However, it does not provide additional format details for start/end dates, which are already covered in 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 tool provides spot prices for specific crude oil and petroleum products (WTI, Brent, Diesel, Regular Gas) with examples of product codes. It explicitly names the resources (crude oil, petroleum products) and the action (spot prices), distinguishing it from sibling EIA tools like finance.eia.natural_gas and finance.eia.electricity.
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 that the tool is for petroleum spot prices, but it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is sufficient for an agent to infer usage based on product type, but explicit alternatives (e.g., 'for natural gas use finance.eia.natural_gas') are missing.
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 readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds that results include FEC candidate ID and filing dates, and notes the data source. No contradictions.
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 sentence that efficiently captures purpose, filters, and output. No redundant information.
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?
The description covers search functionality, filters, and return fields. While pagination is in the schema, it isn't mentioned, but the tool is straightforward. Annotations provide safety 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-defined in the schema. The description merely lists them without adding new meaning, so baseline 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 it searches federal election candidates, listing filter criteria and return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools (committee totals, elections, super PAC spending) by focusing on candidate search.
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 listing filter parameters, and sibling tool names indicate different purposes. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' 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?
Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by specifying the data source (FEC public disclosure) and the nature of the data (receipts, disbursements, cash-on-hand). 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 sentences clearly and efficiently convey the tool's purpose and filtering options. No redundant information.
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 existence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a simple data retrieval tool. It covers what data is returned and how to filter, though it omits details like default ordering or pagination 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'cycle' and 'committee_type' as filters without adding extra meaning beyond the schema's detailed descriptions of each parameter. It does not explain pagination parameters.
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 retrieves receipts, disbursements, and cash-on-hand for US political committees, specifying types (PACs, parties, candidate committees). It differentiates from sibling tools like gov.fec.candidates and gov.fec.elections, which cover different aspects of FEC data.
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 mentions filtering by cycle and committee type, implying the tool is for financial totals. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context of sibling names helps in selection.
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, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it returns L2 order book depth for perpetual pairs, which is more specific. No contradictions.
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 of 10 words, no filler, front-loaded with verb and resource. Highly concise 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?
Output schema exists, so return values are known. Description covers purpose and scope. Could mention interaction between n_sig_figs and mantissa, but not critical for a simple query 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 coin, n_sig_figs, mantissa. Description adds no additional parametric meaning beyond 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'L2 order book depth', and domain 'perpetual pair on Hyperliquid'. It distinguishes from siblings like hyperliquid.markets.data (general market data) and hyperliquid.markets.klines (candlestick data).
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?
Implicitly clear from context: use when order book depth is needed. No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, but sibling differentiation is inherent in naming and description.
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 destructive and idempotent nature (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds a concrete behavioral detail: 'Removes the record immediately', which is not obvious from annotations alone and clarifies the timing.
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: a single sentence with an emoji prefix. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the action type. There is no redundancy or fluff.
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 delete operation with two parameters, the description covers the essential behavior (delete by ID, immediate effect). It references the source of record IDs (dns_list) in the schema. It does not discuss error handling or reversibility, but given the output schema existence and straightforward purpose, it is mostly complete.
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?
Two required parameters are fully described in the input schema (zone_id and record_id). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so it scores at baseline.
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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and clearly targets a 'DNS record from a Cloudflare zone by record ID'. This makes the action unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_create and dns_list.
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 guides by specifying the required parameters (record ID from dns_list results) and the immediate effect. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives (e.g., dns_create) or prerequisites like zone ownership.
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, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that records returned include name, content, TTL, proxy status, and mentions pagination via the limit parameter. 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key details. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.
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?
With 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the essential filtering usage but does not explain output structure, which is handled by the 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no new semantics beyond restating filters (type, name) and does not elaborate on zone_id or limit beyond what schema provides. Baseline 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 tool lists DNS records for a Cloudflare zone, enumerating record types and filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dns_create and dns_delete by being a read-only list operation.
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 specifies filtering by type or name, which provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools (create, delete, purge_cache, zones_list) imply its role, and the read-only nature is evident.
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, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying returned fields and the prerequisite relationship. While pagination is hinted via the limit parameter, the description does not elaborate on default limits or result ordering. Overall, it provides reasonable behavioral context 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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and key details. No unnecessary information or redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.
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 existence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete in most aspects. It covers purpose, returned fields, filtering, and the prerequisite role. Minor omission: no mention of pagination default or behavior, but the limit parameter covers that. Overall, well-rounded for a list 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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (name, status, limit). The description reiterates the filtering capability and implies the limit parameter, but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 it lists all domains (zones) managed in Cloudflare and enumerates the returned fields (zone ID, domain name, status, plan, nameservers). It also notes the tool's role as a prerequisite for other Cloudflare tools, effectively differentiating it from siblings.
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 explicitly states that the Zone ID from this tool is needed for all other Cloudflare tools, providing clear usage context. Filtering options are mentioned (by domain name or status). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient.
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 a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), which aligns with the description's 'Register' action. The description adds value by disclosing quota consumption and that it returns detected carrier and registration status. 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 three sentences, uses an emoji for emphasis, front-loads the action, and contains no unnecessary information. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description covers purpose, usage order, quota, return value, and carrier auto-detection. With annotations and output schema present, it provides sufficient context. Minor missing detail on duplicate registration handling, but overall complete.
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 already has detailed descriptions for both parameters (tracking_number and tag), with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the auto-detection behavior for tracking_number but doesn't add new meaning. Baseline 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 action (register a tracking number), purpose (begin monitoring shipment status), and key features (auto-detects carrier from 3,200+ carriers, must be called before tracking.status). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like logistics.tracking.status.
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 explicitly states 'Must be called before tracking.status', providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. It also mentions quota consumption (200 free/month). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context of siblings and the prerequisite nature makes it clear.
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 discloses that the tool returns a direct image URL and is idempotent (based on annotations). It does not contradict annotations and adds useful behavioral context. Minor omissions like rate limits or storage behavior are not critical given the read-only-like nature (idempotentHint).
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 at two sentences, front-loading the key action and inputs. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first describes the action and return, the second guides template discovery and notes scale. No wasted words.
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?
The description covers the core functionality, input expectations, and a key usage pointer (find template IDs). An output schema exists to detail the return format, so the description's brevity is acceptable. A minor gap is the lack of error handling for invalid template IDs.
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 already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for well-documented params.
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: 'Generate a captioned meme image'. It specifies the key inputs (template ID, top/bottom text) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'imgflip.memes' by directing users to that tool for finding template IDs.
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 explicitly tells users to use 'imgflip.memes' to find template IDs, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or any prerequisites beyond having a template ID.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, so the agent knows the tool is safe and read-only. The description adds useful context about public domain status (17 USC §105) and the types of content, enhancing transparency 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 concise at three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: search scope, filter options, and legal status. No unnecessary words.
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 has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers search scope, filters, and legal status. Pagination is handled by schema. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic usage, though it could mention that results are paginated or include the total count.
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 describes all 5 parameters adequately. The description restates filter options (format and collection) but adds minimal new meaning beyond what's in the parameter descriptions.
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 searches 415K+ digitized historical items at LOC, listing specific item types (photos, manuscripts, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like media.loc.collections (lists collections) and media.loc.item (gets item details) by focusing on search over the entire digitized corpus.
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 searching historical items with filters, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like media.loc.item for individual details. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.
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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and nondestructive. The description adds valuable context: returns only object IDs (not full data), mentions the CC0 public domain status, and implies a safe operation. 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 sentences efficiently convey purpose, searchable fields, output type, next step, and license info. No unnecessary words. Very well structured and 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?
The description is complete for a search tool: it states what it does, what it returns (object IDs), and directs to the detail tool. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or limits, but not critical given typical API design.
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 covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions. The description lists high-level filter categories (keyword, artist, medium, department, date range, geography) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 'Search 470,000+ artworks at The Metropolitan Museum of Art' with a specific verb and resource. It mentions searchable fields (keyword, artist, medium, department, date range, geography) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'met.art.details' by indicating that this tool returns object IDs for subsequent detail 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 explicitly tells the agent to use 'met.art.details' for full metadata and images, providing a clear after-search step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative search tools, though the sibling context makes this clear. The guidance is sufficient for an AI agent.
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, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations, such as units (tenths of °C and mm) and the source dataset, which help agents understand output format. No contradictions.
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, front-loaded with the main function. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently covers purpose, source, units, and constraints.
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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality, constraints, and source. It mentions the prerequisite station tool and date range limit. Could be slightly more complete with explicit mention of rate limits or pagination, but overall 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds contextual value (time span, units) but does not provide significant extra meaning for each parameter beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 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 tool retrieves historical daily weather observations from NOAA NCEI, specifying data types (temperature, precipitation, etc.), time span (260+ years), units (tenths of °C and mm), and source (GHCND dataset). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ncei.climate.stations by focusing on data 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 provides clear usage context: it mentions the prerequisite station ID from the ncei.stations tool, date range constraints (max 1 year), and optional data types. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to other weather tools.
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?
Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: mentions the large dataset (100K+), return fields (ID, name, coordinates, elevation, coverage dates), and historical depth (some from 1700s). Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior.
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 sentences with no fluff: first sentence defines purpose and scope, second explains return values and downstream usage. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.
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?
Covers key return fields and usage context; might benefit from mentioning default limit (10) but overall sufficient given schema and annotations. Output schema exists but isn't detailed here; not 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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., location_id format examples). Description only broadly restates 'by location' without adding new semantics. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Search', resource '100K+ global weather stations', and specific location criteria. It also explains the return fields and downstream usage with ncei.daily_data, distinguishing it from sibling tools.
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?
Explicitly states when to use (to obtain station IDs for historical data) and recommends pairing with ncei.daily_data. Does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but context is clear for typical 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, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: it returns only the 50 most recent versions and includes specific fields (dist-tags, deprecation status, total count). This goes beyond the annotations to set user expectations.
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 no extraneous words. The first sentence concisely states the primary function, and the second provides context on usage. It is well-structured and 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, clear purpose, and presence of an output schema), the description covers essential aspects: what is returned, the 50-version limit, and typical use cases. It could mention pagination or sorting if applicable, but it is appropriate for this 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?
Input schema description coverage is 100% (parameter 'package' has a clear description). The tool description does not add additional parameter details, so it meets the baseline for well-documented schemas.
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 uses specific verbs ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('published versions of an npm package'). It details what is included (dist-tags, deprecation status, version count) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like npm.packages.info (which provides package metadata) by focusing on version listing.
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 explicitly states 'Useful for dependency auditing and upgrade planning,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or reference alternative tools, which would improve guidance.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no contradictory information and provides some additional context about filtering capability, but does not elaborate on pagination, response format, or other behavioral details beyond what the schema already covers.
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 long, front-loaded with action and resource, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every word contributes to clarity and conciseness.
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 high schema coverage (100%) and presence of output schema, the description covers essential purpose and use cases. It misses mentioning the need to pair city with state for disambiguation (though schema notes this), but overall provides sufficient context for effective 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions, examples, and enums for each parameter. The description only mentions high-level filter categories (fuel type, EV network, connector type, access level) without adding new semantics or clarifying nuances beyond the schema. 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 starts with the verb 'Search' and specifies the resource ('US alt-fuel stations') and key dimensions (ZIP, state, city, fuel type, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'afdc_stations_nearest' by stating the latter is for proximity searches, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 suitable use cases: 'state-level analytics or city-wide EV infrastructure surveys'. It also names an alternative tool ('afdc_stations_nearest') and explains when to use that instead, providing clear guidance on selection between sibling tools.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description's behavioral transparency is less critical. The description adds value by listing return fields and constraints (120-day date window), but does not cover all edge cases.
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. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and filters; the second provides sibling differentiation. No extraneous content.
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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, filters, and key return fields. It lacks explicit mention of pagination behavior, but the schema covers pagination parameters. Slightly incomplete for a 6-parameter 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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters. The tool description only mentions filter types, adding no extra semantic information beyond the schema. 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 tool's purpose: searching NVD for CVE records by various filters. It also distinguishes itself from OSV by detailing specific advantages (CVSS v3 scores, CWE, CPE), aiding 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly contrasts with OSV, providing guidance on when to choose this tool over a sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or specify 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 already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds 'Heavy parse but rich data' which informs agents about potential performance cost, going 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no redundant details. Every part earns its place.
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 presence of an output schema and complete annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's scope and data richness, though it could mention any size limits or pagination if applicable.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with description for match_id. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 it provides full detail of one Dota 2 match and enumerates specific data points (hero, items, K/D/A, gold/XP per minute, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like player match lists or summaries.
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 use when needing comprehensive match details, but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives. However, given the tool's specific purpose, the context is clear.
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 readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds cost ($0.001/lookup) and the benefit of error avoidance, which are not in 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?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, cost. No redundancy, every sentence adds 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 output schema exists, description needn't detail return values; it succinctly states what is returned (send tool and price). The context of when to use is clear.
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 covers parameter format fully (E.164). Description reinforces purpose but doesn't add new parameter details, so baseline 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 tool classifies a phone number into pricing tiers (na/world/premium) and returns the recommended send tool and price. It distinguishes from sibling SMS send tools by being a prerequisite lookup.
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?
Explicit guidance to use BEFORE telnyx.send_sms_* to avoid 400 errors indicates when and why to use it. While it doesn't list alternatives, the implication is clear.
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, idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by listing specific return fields (status, parts, timestamps, errors, cost) beyond the 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 with clear action first, then list of returned fields. No unnecessary words. Excellent structure.
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 schema (1 param, no nested objects) and presence of output schema, the description covers the purpose and return values sufficiently. It misses mentioning pagination or rate limits, but those are not critical for a simple status lookup.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains `message_id`. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond confirming it's the UUID from send_sms. Baseline 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 uses specific verb 'Get delivery status and events' and specifies the resource 'Telnyx message by message UUID'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling send/search tools by focusing on status 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 indicates usage after sending a message by requiring a message UUID. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know this is for status checking.
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 behavioral context beyond annotations: returns only 50 most recent versions, lists specific data fields. Annotations already indicate safe, read-only idempotent behavior, so the description complements rather than repeats.
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 succinct sentences: first conveys what the tool does and returns, second provides use cases. No extraneous information.
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 presence of output schema and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains purpose, return fields, limit, and use cases. It does not mention pagination for fetching more than 50 versions, which is 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?
The single parameter 'package' is fully described in the schema with examples. The tool description reiterates usage context but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 tool lists all published versions of a Python package with specific fields (upload dates, yanked status, distribution file types) and mentions the limit of 50 most recent versions. It distinguishes from siblings like pypi.packages.info.
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 context for use cases (dependency auditing, version pinning, upgrade planning) but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool. It is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate 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 (safe, non-destructive) and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns a synthesized answer, curated results with extracted content, and relevance scores, which are behaviors not captured by annotations. 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 two sentences: the first introduces the core functionality and output, the second adds the intended use case and key features. Every sentence is meaningful, no redundancy or fluff. Concept 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?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, a detailed output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return content, typical use case, and filtering support. Minor missing context (e.g., credit cost for advanced depth) is already in schema descriptions.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters (e.g., query, search_depth, include_answer). The tool description does not introduce new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation 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 specifies the tool's action: 'AI-optimized web search' that 'returns synthesized answer + curated results with extracted page content and relevance scores.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like `search.google.web` by emphasizing AI synthesis and RAG pipeline orientation.
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?
States it is 'Built for LLM/agent RAG pipelines,' providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternative search tools (e.g., `search.google.web` for raw results, `search.semantic.web` for semantic queries), which would improve 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. Description adds value by listing specific return fields, no contradictions.
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 sentences, no wasted words. Purpose and return values in first sentence, use case in second. Front-loaded effectively.
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?
Tool is simple with one parameter and clear annotations. Description covers key use case and return fields. Output schema not shown but described; adequate for agent 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 coverage is 100% and already describes the urls parameter fully. Description restates the same information, adding minimal new meaning 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?
Clear verb 'Extract' and resource 'page content' from URLs, specifies return fields (title, author, date, text). Differentiates from sibling search tools by stating it's for content extraction.
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?
Explicitly states use case: 'feeding web pages into agent context'. Does not name alternative tools but context implies when to use vs. search siblings.
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 and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by listing what it checks (honeypot traps, spam traps, leaked credentials) and returns (fraud score, SMTP verification, domain age). There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.
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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the key verb and resource. Every sentence adds value: the first lists checks, the second lists return values. There is no redundant or superfluous text, making it efficient for an agent 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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing return values (fraud score, SMTP verification, etc.). It covers the tool's purpose and outputs well. However, it could mention that the tool is read-only (already in annotations) or provide a hint about typical use cases, but overall it is fairly complete for a 3-parameter 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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (email, fast, abuse_strictness). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for these parameters, so it merely meets the baseline without enhancing 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Validate email for fraud risk') and lists concrete checks (deliverability, disposable providers, spam traps, etc.). The name and content differentiate it from sibling tools like ip_check, phone_check, and url_check, making its scope unambiguous.
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 email fraud detection and mentions it 'goes beyond basic validation,' suggesting it's for in-depth analysis. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling tools are distinctly different (IP, phone, URL), so the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer proper 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 indicate read-only and idempotent. Description adds return field details, sort options, and language filter, complementing annotations. No contradictions.
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 front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information. Every sentence adds 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?
Covers search core functionality, return fields, sort, and language filter. Could mention pagination or rate limits but not essential. Output schema exists, so return details not needed.
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 already describes all parameters fully (100% coverage). Description adds minimal context beyond schema (e.g., 'by keyword' for q). Baseline 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?
Description clearly states it searches posts on Bluesky by keyword, distinguishes from siblings like feed or profile. Specific verb 'search', resource 'posts', and scope 'Bluesky'.
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?
Implies use for keyword-based search but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like feed or profile. No mention of when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description adds real-time nature and data source (Finnhub) and market coverage. No contradictions. Missing info on rate limits or error behavior, but acceptable for a simple read tool.
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 with clear bullet-like structure. Every word earns its place—no fluff, front-loaded with purpose, then 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?
Tool is simple (1 param, no output schema in input but output fields described). Annotations provide safety. Covers what, where, and output fields; minor gap on error handling, but complete for typical 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 coverage is 100% with detailed symbol description; description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 per guidelines—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?
Description states specific verb ('get real-time price quote') and resource ('stock quote'), listing exact fields (current price, change, etc.) and supported markets. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like stocks.market.candles (historical) and stocks.company.profile (info).
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?
Explicitly states support for US stocks, ETFs, and major global exchanges via Finnhub. Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but context makes it clear this is for single real-time quotes, not historical or news. Could add exclusions (e.g., not for historical).
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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Search for events', confirming a read-only operation. It adds value by specifying the data source (Ticketmaster) and geographic scope (26+ countries), which are not in 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?
A single sentence of 20 words that is front-loaded with the core action ('Search for events') and efficiently enumerates key event types and filters. No redundant or irrelevant information.
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 moderate complexity (11 optional parameters, pagination hints via size/page parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential filtering dimensions and scope. Pagination is implied but not stated; however, the output schema likely handles that. The description is sufficiently complete for an event search 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%, so the input schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description paraphrases a subset (keyword, city, date, category) but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states the verb (Search), resource (events), and scope (Ticketmaster, 26+ countries). It lists specific event types (concerts, sports, theatre, festivals) and filtering dimensions (keyword, city, date, category), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like ticketmaster.events.by_artist or ticketmaster.events.nearby.
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 when to use the tool (general event search by various criteria) but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools. Given the rich set of sibling tools for specific queries (by_artist, by_venue, details, nearby, trending), more explicit guidance would be helpful, but the context is clear enough.
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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral details such as DST-awareness, no authentication requirements, and free unlimited usage, which are not in the 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 extremely concise with two short sentences that convey all essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient for an AI agent 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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what the tool returns (date, time, day of week), DST-awareness, and constraints (free/unlimited). It could mention that results are for the given timezone, but that is implied.
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 already provides full coverage (100%) and a clear description for the timezone parameter. The description adds 'any IANA timezone' which slightly reinforces the accepted values, but does not introduce new semantic meaning 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 specifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('current date, time, and day of week for any IANA timezone'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like time.worldclock.convert and time.worldclock.zones by focusing on current time 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 provides clear context (DST-aware, no auth, free, unlimited) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives for related tasks like time conversion or zone listing.
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 and idempotentHint, so the description adds no behavioral info beyond stating read-only operations. No contradictions.
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 key purpose. No wasted words.
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?
With output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers the main use cases. It implies filmography when using ID but does not detail pagination or language, though schema covers those.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by clarifying mutual exclusivity of 'query' and 'id' parameters, which is not explicit in 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 it searches for people (actors, directors, crew) or gets filmography by ID. This differentiates from sibling movie-focused tools like tmdb.movies.details.
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?
It indicates using either 'query' or 'id', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though it is the only person-focused tool among siblings.
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 clearly indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds return field details and cost comparison. Does not elaborate on pagination or rate limits, but annotations already cover safety.
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 sentences: first covers action and output, second adds cost and scope. No filler, 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?
With full schema descriptions, output schema, and rich annotations, description covers key return info. Lacks specific time range for 'recent tweets' but overall 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?
Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description aligns with 'query' but adds no new meaning beyond schema. Baseline score 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?
Clear verb 'Search' and resource 'Twitter/X tweets'. Specifies search methods (keyword, hashtag, advanced query) and return fields (tweet text, author info, engagement metrics, timestamps). Distinct from siblings like twitter.trends.worldwide or twitter.users.profile.
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?
Mentions cost efficiency ('96% cheaper than official X API') and scope ('covers recent tweets'), providing context. No explicit 'when not to use', but the tool's purpose is self-evident and no direct alternative exists among siblings.
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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying it fetches reference lists without modifying data. It does not contradict 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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Clear 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?
Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. Description covers purpose and usage. Could mention output format (e.g., array of code objects) but not essential given the straightforward nature.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema's description for the 'code_list' parameter is detailed with each enum value explained. The tool description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states the tool fetches reference code lists for USAJOBS, lists specific examples (agency codes, pay grades, etc.), and explains its use for discovering valid search filter values. It distinguishes from sibling tools like usajobs.jobs.search and usajobs.positions.detail.
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?
Explicitly says to use the tool to discover valid values for search filters, which implies using it before performing a job search. No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but context with sibling tools provides sufficient guidance.
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 and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only operation. The description adds context about USAJOBS being the sole source for federal postings but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination beyond what the schema provides. 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 exceptionally concise – two sentences that perfectly convey purpose, scope, and exclusivity. No unnecessary words, and the most critical 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?
Given the presence of a complete output schema, thorough annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description provides sufficient context for a search tool. It could mention rate limiting or error handling but those are common and not critical for selection.
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 already has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, including examples and formats. The tool description briefly lists search criteria but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Thus it meets the baseline without additional 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 function: searching US federal civil-service job postings by various criteria (keyword, location, pay grade, agency, position type). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from other job search services like BLS, ESCO, CareerJet, etc., making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for US federal civil-service jobs) and when not to (for non-federal jobs, listing alternative job services). This helps the agent select the correct tool among the many job-related siblings on the server.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the behavioral detail that data is cached for 24 hours, which is beyond annotations. It does not contradict any 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and key differentiator, with no redundant or filler content. Every word serves a purpose.
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 (global VIN decoding) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the input scope, caching behavior, and the types of data returned. It lacks mention of error handling or rate limits, but annotations cover idempotency.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the vin parameter with length and examples. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 it decodes VINs worldwide (100+ countries) and lists specific attributes (make, model, year, etc.), distinguishing itself from US-only NHTSA decoders. The verb 'decode' and resource 'VIN' are specific and unambiguous.
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 explicitly notes coverage of EU, Asia, and other markets beyond US-only NHTSA, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool (global VINs) versus the sibling vehicle.vin.decode (US-only). It also mentions a 24-hour cache, which is a usage consideration.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds geographic scope (US coordinate), data type (current observations), and source (EPA AirNow), providing useful context 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?
Two concise sentences. Front-loaded with purpose. No redundant phrases; every word adds 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 output schema exists and annotations are complete, description covers source, scope, and relationship to sibling. Could explicitly state US-only restriction, but it's implied. Sufficient for a simple read-only 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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions. Description adds no parameter-specific info beyond 'near a US coordinate' which slightly informs lat/lng use. Fails to add significant value over 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?
States 'Current AQI observations near a US coordinate' – specific verb and resource. Explicitly mentions 'Same fields as current_zip', differentiating from zip-based and forecast siblings (e.g., current_zip, forecast_latlng).
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?
By comparing to current_zip, implies use when coordinate is available vs zip. Does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not, but the contrast is clear and sufficient given sibling names.
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, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool is free ('Free, no charge (APIbase)'), which is behavioral cost information. It also clarifies period-granularity constraints. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, visualization hint, and granularity guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action. Minor improvement could merge the visualization sentence into the first.
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 (2 params, no required), annotations, and output schema, the description covers key aspects: data types, granularity rules, and cost. It does not mention output format, but the output schema likely handles that. Sibling tools exist, but the description is sufficient for distinguishing.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage with enum values and defaults. The description adds context: 'hourly (for 1d period) or daily (for 7d/30d)', which clarifies the relationship between period and granularity beyond the schema's individual descriptions.
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 'Get time-series usage data — calls, cost, cache hits per hour or day over a period', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like account.analytics.usage (general usage) and account.analytics.tools (list of tools) by focusing on granular time-series data.
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 gives explicit guidance: 'Choose granularity: hourly (for 1d period) or daily (for 7d/30d)'. This tells the agent when to use each granularity based on period. It also mentions 'Free, no charge' which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
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. Description adds that it's free with no charges, providing extra assurance 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?
Two sentences that front-load the key purpose and immediately provide filtering options. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, how to filter, and use case. Complete for the tool's complexity level.
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 single parameter 'period' is fully described in the schema with enum and default. Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds no new meaning beyond what's already in 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 tool returns an API usage summary with specific metrics (total calls, cost, cache hit rate, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like timeseries and tools by focusing on a summary view.
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?
It says to use for checking usage efficiency and filtering by period. It doesn't explicitly exclude other analytics tools, but the context is clear enough.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully disclosed. The description adds behavioral details about the output (city, state, lat/lon) and the geographical coverage (60+ countries), which goes beyond the 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 only two sentences, but each sentence is information-dense and purposeful. The first sentence states the core functionality and output, the second provides usage instructions and a reference. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but signaled), the description does not need to detail return values. It clearly explains what the tool does, the input requirements, and the extent of coverage. For a simple lookup tool with comprehensive annotations and schema, the description is complete.
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% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description repeats this information and adds examples but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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 tool looks up postal/ZIP codes in over 60 countries, returning city, state/region, and lat/lon coordinates. The verb 'look up' and the resource 'postal code' are specific, and the tool is well-distinguished from sibling address tools like address.ukpost.lookup or address.geocodio.geocode.
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 explicitly says to provide an ISO 2-letter country code and postal code, and mentions the underlying data source (Zippopotam.us). It does not, however, discuss when to use this tool versus regional alternatives like address.ukpost.lookup, which are present in the sibling list.
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 the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds value by specifying the return type (per-model visibility scores) and the specific AI assistants tested, which goes beyond the 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 sentence of 20 words, conveying all necessary information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and returns format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, input, and output (per-model scores). No further context is needed.
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 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'website_domain' parameter. The description adds context that the domain is checked for AI assistant knowledge/recommendation, enhancing meaning 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 it tests whether AI assistants (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini) know about and recommend a brand, and returns per-model visibility scores. The verb 'test' and resource 'brand visibility' are specific, and the mention of specific assistants distinguishes it from sibling tools like aipush.analysis.profile.
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 checking brand visibility, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aipush.analysis.profile or other aipush tools. No guidance on when not to use it or context for selecting it over siblings.
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, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds valuable context: output includes specific formats (EPUB, TXT, HTML, cover JPEG) and an example ID, enhancing agent understanding of what the response contains.
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 sentences no fluff: first sentence states purpose and output, second credits source. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given single parameter, output schema exists, and clear description of output, the tool definition is complete. No additional information needed for agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
Schema already describes the parameter fully (100% coverage). Description adds an example ID and explicit list of output formats, providing extra context that helps the agent understand what the tool returns.
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?
Description clearly states 'Get full metadata + download URLs' for a Project Gutenberg book by numeric ID, with specific formats listed. It distinguishes from sibling tools like books.gutendex.search or books.gutendex.by_author by focusing on retrieval by ID.
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?
Description implies usage when you have a numeric book ID, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., search or author lookup). Agent must infer context from sibling tool names.
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 context that the data is from LibriVox and public domain, and details the content (MP3 URLs, playtimes). No contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with action and key outcomes. Every word is informative, no redundancy. Efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description appropriately summarizes return content (MP3 URLs, playtimes, etc.). Annotations cover safety. The single parameter is clear. No gaps remain.
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 single parameter (book_id) is well-documented in the input schema with a description. The overall description restates the ID usage but adds the output context. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds modest value 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 tool retrieves full audiobook details by LibriVox ID, listing specific data (MP3 URLs, playtimes, authors, project metadata). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling search tool via the parameter hint 'Use librivox.search first to discover IDs.'
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 and parameter hint guide the agent to first use librivox.search to obtain IDs, then call this tool. It implies the tool is for known IDs only, but does not explicitly list when to avoid it. Still adequate.
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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. Description adds value by detailing return fields (runway info, etc.) beyond schema, but no extra traits like rate limits or auth needs. 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every phrase adds value. Extremely concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, parameter, and key return fields. For a simple lookup tool, this is fully complete.
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 coverage is 100% with clear description and examples for icao_code. Description simply reiterates 'ICAO' concept, adding no new meaning beyond schema. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states it provides airport/weather-station metadata by ICAO code. It lists specific fields (name, IATA, lat/lon/elevation, country, city, time zone, runway info) and uses a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like avwx.stations.summary and checkwx.metar.decoded.
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?
Description implies context (use when ICAO code is available) but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools mentioned. However, the context is clear enough for most use cases.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds that the tool returns an array of usernames, but no additional behavioral details like rate limits or pagination. Since annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description is adequate.
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: a single sentence that immediately states the action and result, followed by the return type. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, clear output), the description is complete. It specifies what it does and what it returns. The output schema is implied by the description of the return type. No critical information is missing.
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 already provides a detailed description for the single parameter 'title', including the full list of enum values and their meanings. The description does not add any new parameter semantics beyond what is in 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?
Description clearly states the tool lists all titled players by title, enumerates the titles, and specifies the return type. Differentiates from sibling tools like chesscom.player.profile.
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?
While the description clearly implies usage (filter by title to get a list), it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs other chesscom tools, such as for player profiles or stats. No exclusions 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?
Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds behavioral context: date range, filter options, and return fields. No contradictions.
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 and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is searched, filters, and returned data. No missing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. Description adds default congress number and simplifies enum list, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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 it searches US federal bills and resolutions with a specific date range and filter options. It specifies the resource (bills) and action (search), and distinguishes from siblings like 'bill_details' and 'members'.
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 indicates usage for searching bills, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like bill_details for detailed info. However, the context is clear enough for a search tool.
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, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the source (Congress.gov) and that it covers historical members, which is 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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the action and key details. No wasted words, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are already covered. The description provides sufficient context for a search tool: purpose, filters, source, and what is returned. It is complete for its complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists filterable fields (state, chamber, congress) but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide additional semantics 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 tool searches current and historical US Congress members, specifies filterable fields (state, chamber, congress), and lists return fields (name, party, state, district, bioguide ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'congress.legislation.bills' which deal with legislation.
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 the tool (searching Congress members) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Since sibling tools are for bills, the usage is implied and clear.
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 and destructiveHint=false, so description adds value by noting 'Updated daily on free tier' and 'Returns all rates in one call', which informs about update frequency and bulk retrieval behavior beyond what annotations convey.
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 that front-load the core purpose, with no redundant or extraneous words. Every sentence provides essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-optional-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description fully communicates scope, availability, and behavior. Leaves no significant gaps for agent decision-making.
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 covers the 'base' parameter fully (100% coverage), and the tool description does not add additional interpretation or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Clearly states it provides latest exchange rates for 160+ currencies against any base currency. Distinguishes from sibling currency.exchange.convert by noting 'Returns all rates in one call' – implying this is for bulk rates, not conversion.
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?
Provides clear context: 'Latest exchange rates for 160+ currencies against any base currency' and 'Returns all rates in one call'. Implies use for comprehensive rate retrieval, but no explicit exclusions or comparisons with alternative tools like currency.exchange.convert.
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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral context (46 categories, examples), which is useful beyond the 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, front-loaded with key information (action, count, examples, purpose). No superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a simple list tool: describes action, output scope, and usage intent. Output schema exists but not needed to understand return value.
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 coverage is 100% (locale described). The description does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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?
Description states 'List all 46 available news categories' with examples, clearly indicating the tool's function and distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with news articles (e.g., currents.news.latest).
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?
Explicitly says 'Use to discover valid category values for filtering,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. Does not include when-not-to-use, but the purpose is sufficiently clear among siblings.
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 safety and idempotency. Description adds useful context: database size, returned fields, licensing (CC0), which supplements 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 sentences covering purpose, scope, returns, and use cases. Front-loaded with key action and resource, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with output schema present, description covers all essentials: action, target, returns, use cases. Fully adequate given complexity.
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 coverage is 100% with well-described parameters. Description does not add extra parameter details, meeting baseline expectations for high 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 tool searches computer science authors on DBLP, specifies scope (3M+), and lists returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling 'dblp.cs.search' (likely publications) by focusing on authors.
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?
Explicitly mentions use cases: 'finding researchers, checking publication records, discovering collaborators'. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but context with sibling tools makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses execution behavior: sandboxed, CPU/memory limits, returns stdout/stderr/execution time/memory. Annotations (idempotent, not read-only) are consistent and description adds context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action verb and key features. It includes an emoji and essential details without unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more compact.
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 and the presence of a full output schema, the description covers the necessary aspects: purpose, supported languages, safety, output metrics, and reference for language IDs. It is complete for an execution 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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 executes source code in a sandboxed environment, listing 71 supported languages and output types. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'dev.code.languages' by referencing it for language IDs.
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 explains when to use the tool (execute code safely) and references a sibling tool for language ID lookup, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by listing specific fields returned and confirming it works for users and organizations, which is consistent 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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every element is necessary, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description provides sufficient detail for the agent to understand what data is returned, and the output schema covers the rest. No 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'username' parameter including examples. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Get a GitHub user profile' and lists specific fields like name, bio, public repos count, followers, company, location, join date. It also mentions it works for users and organizations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like developer.github.repo.
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 by stating it works for both users and organizations and references the GitHub API. While it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, the purpose is obvious for a profile retrieval tool.
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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: conversion to multiple formats, URL requirement, and optional page range. No contradictions; useful extra detail.
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 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: formats, page range, source requirement. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters fully described in schema, annotations present, and existence of output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, input requirements, and optional settings. No 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 parameters well. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing target formats and noting page range optionality. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states 'Convert PDF to Word (DOCX), Excel (XLSX), PowerPoint (PPTX), plain text (TXT), or images (JPG/PNG per page)'. It specifies the verb (Convert), resource (PDF), and lists target formats, distinguishing it from siblings like document.convert.to_pdf and other PDF tools.
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?
Description mentions 'Optional page range selection' and 'Provide PDF as URL', giving context for usage. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the sibling names make the differentiation natural. Clear enough for an agent.
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, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds that the tool returns only a count (not full data) and sources from USGS. This provides useful behavioral context 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?
Single sentence with no waste. Front-loaded with the core action ('Count earthquakes...') and immediately provides the key differentiator ('without returning full data'). Exceptionally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple count query with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it (statistics/monitoring), and the data source (USGS). No gaps identified.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. Description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond 'matching search criteria', which is a general reference. Baseline 3 applies as 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?
Description clearly states the tool counts earthquakes matching search criteria without returning full data. It distinguishes from siblings (earthquake.events.feed and earthquake.events.search) by specifying it only returns a count, not a list of events.
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?
Description explicitly says 'useful for statistics and monitoring thresholds', indicating when to use this tool over siblings (which return full data). Could be improved with explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is clear.
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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: paginated results, 500+ active deals, and support for 12 Amazon marketplaces. This enriches what the agent knows beyond the 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?
Extremely concise: two sentences, first one covers core functionality and fields, second adds pagination count and marketplace scope. No filler or redundant information. Front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It sufficiently covers tool purpose, data fields, pagination behavior, scale (500+ deals), and supported marketplaces. No obvious gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (domain, page). The description adds no direct parameter detail but reinforces marketplace scope via '12 Amazon marketplaces', indirectly helping agents understand the domain parameter's purpose. Baseline 3 raised due to this extra context.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'browse' and resource 'Amazon current deals' with specifics: original vs deal price, product title, ASIN, deal link. Distinguishes from sibling tools like amazon.offers, amazon.product, amazon.search by focusing on 'deals' rather than general product info or search.
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 does not explicitly tell when to use this tool over siblings. It implies a broad use case (browsing deals) but lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for specific product lookup or offer analysis). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already convey the non-destructive, idempotent nature. The description adds context about third-party offers and the Canopy API source but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the most important information, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the key aspects of what the tool returns. It also aligns with annotations. There are no obvious gaps for a data retrieval tool of this complexity.
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?
Both parameters (asin, domain) are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds extra meaning by enumerating the return fields (Buy Box winner, seller ratings, delivery info), enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 retrieves all third-party seller offers for an Amazon product, listing specific data fields (price, condition, seller, buy box). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ecommerce.amazon.product (product details) and ecommerce.amazon.search (product search) by focusing on offers and price comparison.
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 price comparison across sellers and offer details, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use cases.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned, consistent with the annotations. No additional behavioral context like rate limits or auth is provided, but the annotations cover the 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 concise and front-loaded, with a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, annotations covering the tool's safety, and a clear parameter schema, the description is complete enough for a simple lookup tool. It adds the source of ASINs and marketplace scope, which is sufficient for correct usage.
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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the list of marketplaces already in the schema's domain description, adding no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full Amazon product details by ASIN'. It lists the returned fields (title, brand, price, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling search tools by instructing to use ASINs from canopy.search.
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: use ASINs from canopy.search, and supports 12 marketplaces. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like ecommerce.amazon.offers or mention when not to use it.
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 it is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns full metadata including citations, funding, and license, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and output in a compact form, front-loading the key verb 'Resolve'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple parameter (one DOI string), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns, leaving no ambiguity.
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 single 'doi' parameter is described with examples, adding value beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description reinforces proper usage with sample values.
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 it resolves a DOI to publication metadata, listing specific fields (title, authors, journal, citations, funding, license). This distinguishes it from other education tools by specifying the source (CrossRef) and the type of output.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like education.papers.search or education.pubmed.search. The usage is implied (for DOI resolution), but no exclusion criteria or context is given.
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 and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (address, connectors, cost, etc.), which is not present in the input schema or 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key return fields without redundancy. Every word adds value, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, full schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and where to get the input, with no missing 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?
The input schema already provides a clear description for the 'id' parameter ('Open Charge Map station ID — get from search or nearby results'). The description repeats this guidance but does not add new semantic meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 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 action ('Get full details'), the resource ('specific EV charging station by ID'), and enumerates the specific data fields returned (address, GPS coordinates, connectors, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ev.charging.nearby' and 'ev.charging.search' which are for listing/searching.
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 explicitly instructs the agent to use the station ID from search or nearby results, providing clear context for when and how to obtain the input parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient.
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: it covers up to 3 months of data and sources from GDELT Project, which goes beyond the 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?
Two sentences front-loading the core action and key constraints. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with a known output schema, the description provides sufficient context: data source, time limit, and keyword examples. It is complete for an agent to decide on 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-described. The description adds only minor value by exemplifying keywords and restating the timespan range. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 tool tracks mention volume of any topic over time in global news coverage, using a specific verb 'track' and resource 'GDELT project news'. It distinguishes from sibling 'events.global.search' which would be for specific event lookup.
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 monitoring keyword spikes and trends in news coverage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'news.global.latest' or 'events.global.search'. It provides a clear context without 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 convey read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description neither contradicts nor adds significant behavioral context beyond stating the return data.
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 sentences clearly stating the action and listing returned fields. No extraneous words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a single well-described parameter and mention of output fields, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose ('FDIC certificate number') and provides guidance on obtaining it via fdic.search. It also lists expected return fields, adding value 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?
Clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'full regulatory profile' for an FDIC-insured bank by certificate number, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fdic.institutions.search and fdic.institutions.failures.
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?
Explicitly mentions that the certificate number is obtained via fdic.search, providing a clear prerequisite and linking to the appropriate sibling tool. However, does not elaborate on when not to use this tool vs other FDIC tools.
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 semantics. The description adds specific returned fields (registration counts, average damage, etc.), going beyond annotations. No contradiction detected.
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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, output summary, source. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a query tool: it lists the key filters (state, disaster number), specifies the returned metrics by county, and cites the data source. An output schema exists but is not needed for 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?
The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (state, disaster_number, limit). The description does not add new semantic value beyond what the schema already offers; thus, baseline score of 3 applies.
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 queries federal disaster housing assistance data by state and disaster number, listing specific returned metrics. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fema.disaster.declarations' and 'fema.disaster.flood_claims'.
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 notes the tool is useful for disaster recovery analysis and aid distribution research, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, slightly reducing the 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. Description adds that it returns 'last 5 reporting periods per metric with form type and date', which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations alone 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?
Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key information: what it does, what metrics, how many periods, and data source.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single required parameter, availability of output schema, and clear description of output structure (metrics, periods, form type, date), the description is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Parameter schema has 100% coverage with description 'SEC CIK number (e.g. '320193' for Apple)'. Description adds example but no further semantic meaning. According to rubric, high schema coverage gives baseline 3, which 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?
Description clearly specifies verb (returns), resource (XBRL financial facts), and target (US public company). Lists specific metrics (revenue, net income, assets, liabilities, equity, EPS, cash, operating income) and differentiates from sibling tools like finance.edgar.filings and finance.edgar.company_search by focusing on structured XBRL data.
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?
Description implies usage context for obtaining financial metrics from 10-K/10-Q filings, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like finance.edgar.xbrl_concept or finance.edgar.xbrl_frames. Still, the scope is clear and aligned with typical agent needs.
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 and idempotent nature. The description adds specific behavioral details: returns up to 1000 filings, lists specific form types, and mentions document URL and description. 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the action, input, sample output, and limit. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one required parameter, thorough annotations, and an output schema (implied by description), the description covers input, behavior, and output adequately. It is complete for a listing tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of cik. The description adds value by noting 'Find via company_search', guiding the user to obtain the CIK. This goes beyond the schema alone.
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 'List recent SEC filings' and the resource 'for a company by CIK number'. It provides examples of filing types and output fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like finance.edgar.company_facts.
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 filings by CIK but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like finance.edgar.company_facts or finance.edgar.xbrl_concept. Some guidance on choosing among EDGAR tools would improve it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the metric (percentage of active population, seasonally adjusted), the scope (one country per call), and the data source and licensing. The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, which are consistent.
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 sentence that packs essential information: what, when, scope, data source, and licensing. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, output schema present), the description adequately covers the data source, unit, seasonality, and scope. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond listing geo code examples and aggregates, which is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description does not significantly 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 tool provides the monthly unemployment rate for EU countries or aggregates, with specific data source (Eurostat dataset une_rt_m) and licensing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like finance.eurostat.gdp_growth, finance.eurostat.inflation, and finance.eurostat.population.
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 EU unemployment data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other Eurostat tools). There is no guidance on when not to use or prerequisite conditions.
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, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds source (Open Food Facts) and data coverage (3M+ products), enriching transparency 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?
Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with key verb and resource. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even without output schema in view, the description lists all returned fields. With annotations and simple input, the description is complete for decision-making.
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?
Only one parameter (barcode) with full schema description. The tool description does not add new semantics beyond the schema, which is already clear. Baseline 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?
Clearly states the verb (lookup), resource (food product by barcode), and the specific data returned (name, brand, nutrition, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling 'food.product.search' which likely searches by name.
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?
Implicitly clear: use when you have a barcode to look up food products. No explicit when-not or alternative named, but the context is obvious given the sibling tools and description.
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 behavior. The description adds value by specifying return fields and scale (3M+ products), enhancing understanding 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?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with action and key details. Efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given rich annotations, output schema, and complete parameter coverage, the description is fully sufficient. It covers purpose, result structure, and scope.
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 coverage is 100%. The description aligns with the query parameter ('by name') but provides no extra detail beyond what the schema already offers (e.g., default limit). 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 it searches food products by name and lists returned fields (brand, barcode, Nutri-Score, image). It distinguishes from sibling tool food.product.barcode which likely uses barcode lookup.
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 it is for name-based search and mentions the database (Open Food Facts). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling tool context provides differentiation.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds specific return content beyond what annotations provide, such as classification hierarchy and synonyms, enhancing behavioral understanding.
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?
Three sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the main action and quickly details return fields and source.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple parameter set (1 required integer), complete annotations (readOnly, idempotent), and presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated in context signals), the description covers all needed context: what it does, what it returns, and the data source.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already defines taxon_key as 'GBIF taxon key (numeric ID from species search results)'. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond that, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'full taxonomic profile', and the input 'by GBIF taxon key'. It lists specific return fields (classification hierarchy, vernacular names, synonyms, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like species_search or occurrences.
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 after obtaining a taxon key (likely from a search tool) and specifies the data source (GBIF backbone taxonomy). It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear for an agent.
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. Description adds value by listing returned fields (name, alert level, population, coordinates, geometry, source, links). No mention of side effects, but annotations cover safety.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns. No missing aspects for a details lookup.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?
Specific verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information for a specific GDACS disaster event by ID'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools gdacs.disasters.alerts and gdacs.disasters.history by focusing on a single event's details.
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?
Implies use after obtaining event_id from gdacs.alerts, as mentioned in parameter description. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context makes it clear for single event 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 already provide strong behavioral cues (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld). The description adds value by specifying the exact data fields returned, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions or missing critical 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, clear sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, output details, and source (BrasilAPI MIT). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, single-parameter tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what data it returns, and the data source. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 covers the single parameter 'cnpj' with a detailed description of format (14 digits, with/without punctuation). Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description only briefly mentions '14-digit CNPJ tax ID', adding no new meaning 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 verb 'look up', the resource 'Brazilian company by 14-digit CNPJ tax ID', and lists the returned data (name, address, CNAE codes, etc.) and source (Receita Federal). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gov.brasilapi.banks or gov.brasilapi.cep.
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 indicates when to use this tool: to retrieve Brazilian company data via CNPJ. While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, the tool's specificity makes the context clear. A higher score would require explicit 'when not to use' 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful operational context (5-minute frequency, 60 stations, coordinates, license) that aids understanding beyond the 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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the most important information: data type, frequency, units, station count, and license. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the tool description sufficiently covers the what, frequency, units, coverage, and licensing. No critical missing pieces for a read-only data retrieval 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter (date). The tool description does not repeat or enhance parameter semantics; it adds no meaning beyond the schema's property description.
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 (readings) and resource (5-minute rainfall data from 60 NEA stations), and distinguishes from siblings like gov.sg.weather_forecast by specifying real-time/historical rainfall measurements.
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?
Implicit usage context is clear from the tool name and description, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The sibling tools list includes similar gov.sg weather tools, but the description doesn't direct users to them.
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, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the dataset size (1100+ entries) and the fields returned, 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, concise sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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, clear annotations, output schema present), the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, what data it includes, and the scope.
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 coverage is 100% with full parameter descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 verb 'List or search' and the resource 'UK government organisations', listing specific types and data fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like govuk.content.fetch and govuk.content.search by focusing on organisations.
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 context for when to use the tool (listing or searching organisations). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, the purpose is clear and distinct from siblings.
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 safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds behavioral details: returns up to 500 records, specific output fields (category, location, outcome status), and data license (OGL v3.0 commercial ok). 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?
Three concise sentences packed with essential information: purpose, scope, parameters, output, license. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all key aspects: what, where (coordinate, radius, region), when (month), filters, output fields, data source, and licensing. Output schema exists, so return structure details are not needed. Completeness is high given simplicity of 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it mentions 'filter by crime category' and 'given month' which correspond to the category and date parameters, but schema already describes these. No additional parameter details.
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 returns street-level UK crime records near a coordinate for a given month, with a specific radius (1 mile), geographic scope (England+Wales, 43 forces), and filter capabilities. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gov.ukpolice.forces and gov.ukpolice.outcomes by focusing on crimes near a point.
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 fetching crime records near a coordinate but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives. The context of sibling tools (forces, outcomes) provides implicit guidance, but explicit when-not/alternatives are missing.
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 readOnly, destructive false, idempotent, and open world. The description adds that results come from ClinicalTrials.gov and lists the fields included, providing useful context beyond the 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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and efficiently lists all included details without redundancy, earning its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description fully explains the tool's scope, source, and contents, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke.
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 coverage is 100% with a description for nct_id. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema's explanation; it restates that it's an NCT ID.
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 it returns 'Full details for a clinical trial by NCT ID' and enumerates specific content (protocol, conditions, interventions, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like health.clinical.search and health.clinical.stats.
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 use when an NCT ID is available and full details are needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use or point to alternatives, but the context is clear.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to reiterate safety. It adds value by listing the types of metadata returned (downloads, likes, tags, etc.), which goes beyond the 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 sentences: first states purpose and content, second gives usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary, front-loaded, and concise with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple (one required parameter, read-only, with an output schema), the description covers the purpose, input source, and example format. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke 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?
The schema already documents model_id with a description and example. The description echoes the same guidance ('Use model_id from hf.models search (e.g. ...)'), adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is 100%.
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 'Get full metadata for a HuggingFace model' specifying the verb 'get' and the resource 'full metadata'. It lists specific attributes (downloads, likes, tags, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hf.hub.models which is for search.
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 explicit guidance on the input source: 'Use model_id from hf.models search' with an example format. It implies this tool is for fetching details after search but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives.
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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to emphasize safety. The description adds value by stating 'Returns the computed IBAN with correct checksum,' which informs the agent of the output 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 two sentences, each carrying essential information. The first sentence lists inputs and action; the second sentence describes output and use case. No unnecessary words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (calculation from inputs) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what inputs are needed (including optional ones), what it returns, and a practical use case. No missing critical details.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a clear description. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it notes that branch_code is optional and clarifies the domestic nature of bank_code and account_number. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description provides only marginal additional 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 function: 'Calculate a valid IBAN from domestic bank routing details.' It lists the required inputs (country code, bank code, account number) and optional branch code, and specifies the output (IBAN with checksum). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool 'iban.banking.validate' which focuses on validation rather than generation.
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 payment automation ('Useful for payment automation.') and contextually suggests it is for generating IBANs, not validating them. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'iban.banking.validate' or mention scenarios where this tool is not appropriate. Slight room for improvement.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about what fields are returned (abbreviation, generation, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations or introduce hidden 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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key features. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return structure. It lists the included fields, which is sufficient. The tool is simple and the description covers all essential aspects for an agent to use it correctly.
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 described (id, query, limit). The description reiterates the lookup methods (by ID or name) and mentions the limit for searches, but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema definitions. The baseline 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 uses a clear verb ('Look up') and specifies the resource ('gaming platforms') along with the available lookup methods ('by ID or search by name'). It lists the returned fields ('abbreviation, generation, platform family, versions, and summary'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'igdb.games.search' or 'igdb.companies.info'.
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 explains how to use the tool (by ID or query with limit) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The context of platform lookup is clear, and the sibling list includes related tools like 'igdb.games.search', but the description does not differentiate them.
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?
Adds value beyond annotations by specifying auto-expiry after 5 minutes of inactivity and underlying infrastructure (Browserbase). Consistent with destructiveHint and readOnlyHint 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?
Very concise: two sentences with front-loaded action. Every sentence adds necessary context without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for the tool's simplicity: explains return values (session ID, WebSocket URL), mentions optional parameters, and notes critical behavioral aspect (auto-expiry). No 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 coverage is 100% and descriptions adequately explain parameters. The tool description reinforces region and proxy options but adds no new meaning 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 explicitly states 'Create a managed headless browser session' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_sessions or session_status by focusing on creation.
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?
Tells when to use (to create a session for browser automation) but does not explicitly say when not to use or mention alternatives. The auto-expiry note provides context for session lifecycle.
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, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the batch size limit (max 100) and listing the output data fields. It also credits the data source (ipapi.is). No contradictions.
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, appropriately-sized sentence (23 words) that front-loads the core action. Every word adds value, making it concise and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, safe read operation, explicit annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, limits, output fields, and data source, leaving no major 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% coverage, describing the 'ips' parameter as an array of IPv4/IPv6 addresses with min/max constraints. The tool description does not add new information about the parameter 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 tool's purpose: looking up multiple IP addresses in one call with a max of 100, and lists the returned data fields (country, city, VPN/Tor/proxy flags, ASN, organization). It distinguishes from the sibling tool ip.intelligence.lookup by explicitly mentioning 'bulk' and 'multiple IP addresses'.
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 the usage context: when you need to look up multiple IPs in a single request. It does not explicitly state when to use the single-lookup sibling, but the name and description make the distinction clear. Including an explicit alternative would improve it, but it's still effective.
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds that it returns specific fields, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey. Since annotations are rich, the description's extra value is modest.
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 sentences, no wasted words. The most critical information (purpose and return fields) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and usage guidance follows immediately. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (returns structured data) and the tool is simple (single parameter), the description fully covers the necessary context: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No 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 coverage is 100% and the schema description of the 'query' parameter already includes examples and case-insensitivity details. The main description does not add further parameter semantics, so 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?
Clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'Indian Railways stations', and specifies the returned fields (station code, full name, state). It also explicitly identifies when to use this tool via the sibling reference 'irctc.train_search/status', distinguishing it from other tools.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover station codes for irctc.train_search/status'. This clearly instructs the agent to invoke this tool before using the train search or status tools, providing necessary 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 declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the output fields (current station, delay, schedule, etc.), which helps the agent understand what to expect. 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key outputs. No wasted words, and all information is essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the necessary aspects: it identifies the resource (Indian train), the input constraints (today or specific date), and the outputs (current station, schedule, delay). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'today or a specific date' which relates to start_day but doesn't clarify the offset semantics. Schema already describes parameters 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 ('Get live running status'), the resource ('Indian train'), and the specific data returned ('current station, expected arrival/departure, delay, distance covered, full station-by-station schedule'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like irctc.trains.search and irctc.stations.search by focusing on live status of a specific train.
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 explicitly mentions usage context: 'for today or a specific date', which guides the agent on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context and sibling names imply the tool is for real-time tracking of a known train number.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral detail on the output format (histogram of salary buckets with job counts), which goes 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 two sentences plus an example, entirely front-loaded with the key information. Every sentence adds value without repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema for the histogram structure, the description fully covers purpose, example, and usage context. No gaps remain.
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 parameter descriptions. The description adds an example for 'what' but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the resource 'salary distribution' returning a histogram with job counts. It provides an example ('python developer' in US → $20K-$140K distribution), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'jobs.adzuna.search' which return job listings.
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 advises 'Use for salary benchmarking and market research', giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like 'jobs.salary.data' or mention when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies a limit of 20 property statements, mentions 300+ language support, and notes the CC-0 license. Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, so this is appropriate supplementation.
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 highly concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and an example, and includes key details without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on input requirements and behavioral traits without needing to detail return values. It covers the key aspects for a read-only tool with 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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The description reinforces the source of IDs and provides examples, but does not add significant new information beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 a specific verb ('Get structured data for a Wikidata entity by ID'), provides a concrete example (Q42 = Douglas Adams), and distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool by indicating where to obtain IDs.
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 explicitly instructs the agent to obtain IDs from the sibling tool 'knowledge.wikidata.search', which provides clear guidance on prerequisite usage. It also describes the returned data types, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.
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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open world. The description adds context about return format ('Returns entity ID, label, description') and data license ('CC-0 public domain (Wikidata)'). It does not contradict 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. No unnecessary words, every sentence provides value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity and presence of output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, data license, and sibling tool reference. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.
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 parameters well. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond giving example queries ('Tesla', 'Barack Obama'), which are already implied by the schema descriptions.
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 'Search 100M+ structured entities in Wikidata' and lists example entity types (people, companies, places, concepts). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'wikidata.entity' by noting 'Use IDs with wikidata.entity for full details'.
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: use this tool to search, then use wikidata.entity for full details. It also notes the data is CC-0 public domain. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives beyond the sibling.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds behavioral context by explaining it returns words with specific relationships and mentions Datamuse as the data source, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior 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?
Two efficient sentences plus examples. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states purpose, second gives examples, third suggests use cases. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 optional parameters and multiple search dimensions, the description is complete. It covers all search types with examples, mentions intended use cases, and is adequate for agent to understand when and how to invoke this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description includes examples that map to parameters (meaning, rhymes_with) but does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Examples illustrate usage but do not raise score above baseline.
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?
Description clearly states it finds words by meaning, sound, rhyme, or spelling pattern. Examples like 'happy' → pleased and 'algorithm' rhymes → rhythm demonstrate functionality. Differentiates from sibling tools like language.dictionary.define by focusing on related words.
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?
Explicitly says 'great for writing, creative tasks, word games', providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but context implies it's for word relation queries.
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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns translations and audio recordings, providing additional context beyond the 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 concise, with three clear sentences. The first sentence states the action and result, the second adds context, and the third provides licensing information. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description does not need to detail the return format. It adequately covers the return content (translations, audio recordings) and the single required parameter.
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% and the parameter description already explains that the sentence with translations and audio recordings is returned. The tool description does not add new information beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'a single Tatoeba sentence by ID', and the scope 'with all translations and audio recordings'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'language.tatoeba.search' which provides search functionality.
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 context by stating it is 'useful for language-learning agents', but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'language.tatoeba.search'). It implies usage when a specific sentence ID is known.
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 and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool returns latest documents with optional type filtering, and that no search query is needed. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful behavioral context 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?
Single sentence with a dash separating purpose and filter capability. Information is front-loaded: 'Latest documents published in the Federal Register' immediately conveys the tool's function. Concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, filter options, and usage context (no search query). No additional information about return values or behavior is needed for a simple listing 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%, so baseline is 3. The description partially explains document_type (the enum values) but does not mention the limit parameter. It adds value by stating 'No search query needed' but otherwise does not significantly enrich schema semantics.
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 retrieves 'Latest documents published in the Federal Register' and lists the filterable types, distinguishing it from the sibling `legal.fedregister.search` (which requires a query) and `legal.fedregister.document` (which likely retrieves a specific document).
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?
Implicitly tells when to use this tool ('No search query needed') versus search-based alternatives. Does not explicitly name sibling tools but provides enough context for an agent to differentiate 'recent' from 'search'.
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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns corrected spelling, ZIP+4, and validation status. This exceeds what annotations provide and aligns with 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 two sentences long, front-loads the core function, and every word adds value. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description succinctly explains the tool's purpose, output, and use case. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this 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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The description does not add new information about individual parameters beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance 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 verb 'Validate and standardize' combined with the resource 'US address', and specifies the output includes USPS-verified address with corrections and validation status. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like logistics.shipengine.rates or logistics.shipengine.carriers.
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 mentions 'before shipping' as the context and calls out common use cases (typos, missing info, invalid addresses). Although it does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, the context is clear enough for most scenarios.
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 and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the output fields and that it returns the top 100 popular templates. There is no contradiction, and the description complements the annotations well.
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 long and front-loaded with the core action and result. Every word is purposeful—no filler or redundancy. It includes examples and usage guidance without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required fields), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, what it returns, and how to use the output. The annotations and output schema (if any) further complete the picture. No gaps are evident.
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 already provides a description for the 'search' parameter (filter by name, client-side, returns top 100). The description in the tool definition does not add new parameter-level semantics; it restates the schema description. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional value is provided.
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 ('Get top 100 popular meme templates'), provides concrete examples, lists returned fields (template ID, name, image URL, box count), and explicitly connects to the sibling tool (imgflip.caption). This makes it easy for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and how it relates to other tools.
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 tells the agent to use the returned IDs with imgflip.caption to generate memes, establishing a clear use case. It implies this tool is for browsing/preparing meme templates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if you need more than 100 templates or need to generate captions directly), but the optional search parameter and 'top 100' provide implicit limitations.
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?
Description adds value beyond annotations by specifying it returns photographer, multiple sizes, and Pexels URL. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open world behavior; description complements 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?
Two concise sentences: first describes the tool's output and freshness, second provides a use case. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, use case, and output details. No gaps in functionality explanation.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (limit and page). Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema descriptions, so 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?
Description clearly states it provides hand-picked curated photos, updated daily, and returns photographer, multiple sizes, and Pexels URL. This distinguishes it from sibling media.pexels.search_photos which would be used for search queries.
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?
Description suggests use for featured images and hero sections, giving a clear use case. It implies curation vs search but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output fields and source (PodcastIndex), but could still be improved by mentioning rate limits or pagination.
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: first states action and return data, second adds context. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a complete input schema, output schema, and informative annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, the data source, and what results look like. No gaps.
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?
Input schema already covers all parameter descriptions (100% coverage). The description enriches these by explaining the result set and data source, giving more context for how parameters like q, lang, cat affect results.
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 searches 4M+ podcasts by keyword and lists exactly what fields are returned (title, author, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like details or episodes by focusing on search functionality.
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 explains the scope (open directory, all languages/countries) but does not explicitly contrast with other podcast search options like podcasts.listennotes.search or media.podcast.trending, so guidance is implicit rather than 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 indicate safety (read-only, idempotent). Description adds that it returns trending score and episode count from PodcastIndex, going beyond the minimal 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?
One concise sentence with all key info: what, ranking criteria, filters, return fields. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given annotations, schema, and output schema (implied), the description provides all necessary context for a simple list tool. No missing 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 covers all parameters with descriptions. Description echoes 'Filter by language and category' but doesn't add significant new meaning. Baseline 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 it returns trending podcasts globally, ranked by engagement, with filter options. It distinguishes from sibling tools like media.podcast.search or details.
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 explains when to use (trending podcasts) and what filters are available, but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tool names. However, the context is clear.
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 destructive hint, and description adds behavioral details like formatting support, character limit, and integration with Telegram Bot API. 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?
Description is concise, front-loaded with the action, and uses efficient formatting. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, formatting, limits, and typical use cases. No critical information is missing.
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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so description does not need to add much. It repeats formatting and char limit info, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema for each parameter.
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?
Description clearly states it sends a text message to a Telegram user or group chat, with specific formatting support and character limit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_document and send_photo by focusing on text messages, and provides context for alerts and notifications.
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 tells when to use (sending text messages) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools. However, the purpose is clear and the context of 'alerts, notifications, reports' provides practical guidance.
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 readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds detail about the data returned but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. No 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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and data fields. Every sentence adds value without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential context (what data is retrieved, ID source). Complete for a simple single-parameter tool.
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 100% coverage with a single parameter, object_id. The description adds value by providing example object IDs and reinforcing the need to use met.search, which aids the agent in constructing valid queries.
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: 'Get full details for a Met Museum artwork by object ID' and lists the specific data fields (title, artist, date, etc.). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by instructing to use met.search first.
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 explicitly advises to use met.search to find object IDs first, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative approaches beyond met.search.
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 read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds specific output fields (size, hazard, velocity, miss distance) and the date range limitation, which are not in 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?
One sentence efficiently conveys purpose, resource, data fields, and constraints. No wasted words. Front-loaded with key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand return data. No major gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, and the tool description adds 'max 7-day span' and 'default: start_date + 7 days', which clarify usage beyond the schema alone.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('near-Earth asteroid close approaches') and lists key data fields (size, hazard, velocity, miss distance). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'NASA NeoWs' source, which differs from JPL tools like jpl.asteroids.approaches.
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 specifies a date range constraint ('max 7-day span') and default behavior, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this tool vs siblings. The agent would benefit from guidance on when to choose this over jpl.asteroids.approaches.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral details beyond confirming it is a read operation for download stats. Since annotations are comprehensive, the description does not need to repeat them, but it could mention data source or rate limits. No contradictions.
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 succinct, front-loaded with the action ('Get download count'), then specifies options, and ends with a use-case example. No redundant words or unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with only two parameters and an output schema (present but not detailed here), the description covers what the tool does, its parameters, and its typical use cases. An agent can fully understand when and how to invoke it.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions and enum values. The description adds marginal value by listing the period options and giving an example (express), but does not provide additional meaning 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 that the tool retrieves download counts for npm packages over specified periods, using the verb 'Get'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like npm.packages.info and npm.packages.search by focusing on downloads stats, making purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly mentions use cases: measuring package popularity, adoption trends, and comparing alternatives. It provides a concrete example (express). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate 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 (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already indicate safe, read-only behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns ranked results with quality, popularity, maintenance scores, download counts, dependents, license, and publisher. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, providing rich context about output.
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and packs substantial information (scale, return fields, examples) without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich annotations, well-documented schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and output in a compact form, leaving no critical gaps for an AI agent to understand its usage.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both params (query and size). The description adds example queries but does not provide new semantic information about the parameter schema. Since the schema already well-documents the parameters, the description's contribution here is neutral.
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 searches npm packages by keyword, specifying the scale (2.1M+ packages) and the return fields (quality, popularity, maintenance scores, etc.). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like npm.packages.info or npm.packages.downloads, which are for specific package details or download stats, not search.
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 example queries in parentheses, implicitly guiding when to use this tool for discovery. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context of sibling tool names (e.g., npm.packages.info) provides indirect guidance. A clear statement of alternatives would improve this 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 declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world. Description adds what return data includes (name, address, network, plug types, hours, last verified date), providing useful behavioral context. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: action and scope, details of what's included, and exception/alternative. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and return fields. All parameters are documented in schema. No 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 description adds little beyond what's in the schema. However, it mentions specific EV charging levels (Level 1/2/DC Fast) which relates to the fuel_type parameter, adding some marginal 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 finds the nearest alternative fuel stations to a US location, listing fuel types and return fields. It also distinguishes from a sibling tool (openchargemap) for global EV stations.
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?
Explicitly states US-specific and provides an alternative for global EV stations. However, it doesn't contrast with other NREL tools like nrel.afdc.search or nrel.afdc.detail, which serve different purposes but are siblings.
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 readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open world. The description adds behavioral context by stating the search scope (2.3M+ items, 190+ countries) and the returned fields (ID, name, type, brand, per-serving summary). 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 two well-structured sentences. The first sentence captures the core purpose and scope, and the second sentence explains the output and provides a hint for next steps. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, input (search by name), and output summary. It also gives a usage hint for further detail, making it complete for a search 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?
Input schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description reiterates the query parameter but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema examples.
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 specifies the verb 'search', the resource '2.3M+ food items', and the scope including branded products, restaurant meals, and generic foods from 190+ countries. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool (nutrition.fatsecret.details) by noting to use food_id for detailed lookup.
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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (search by name for broad results) and implicitly suggests using the details tool for more information. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the details tool.
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, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by specifying return fields (CPE 2.3 URI, title, deprecation status) and the purpose of finding exact CPE strings. This adds value beyond the annotations 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, rich annotations, and presence of output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, return type, and usage context, with no 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 detailed parameter descriptions including examples for 'keyword' and bounds for numeric params. The tool description does not add extra param semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 tool searches the CPE dictionary for product identifiers used by CVEs, and specifically mentions returning CPE 2.3 URI, title, and deprecation status. It distinguishes itself from sibling nvd.cves.search by noting it should be used 'before searching CVEs by affected product'.
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 explicitly recommends using this tool to find exact CPE strings before searching CVEs, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools beyond the implied relation to nvd.cves.search.
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 readiness and non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral context: the profile may be private and returns minimal info. This provides value beyond annotation signals 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 two sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the verb ('Get') and resource ('player profile + summary stats'), making the purpose immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and robust schema/annotations/output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what data is returned, the unique identifier requirement, and the privacy caveat. No 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 a thorough description of account_id including how to obtain it and an example. The tool description does not add new parameter-level information beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score 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 tool retrieves a Dota 2 player's profile and summary stats by Steam Account ID, listing specific fields (name, avatar, MMR, wins/losses, rank, last match). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opendota.matches.detail or opendota.players.matches.
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 the tool is for fetching a player's summary stats. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance but mentions privacy (returns minimal info if private), which helps set expectations. No explicit alternatives provided, but clarity compensates.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond 'scan', which is consistent. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 sentences with no wasted words. Key information (batch size, format, use case) is front-loaded and efficiently conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given rich annotations, full schema, and existence of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what, how many, what to submit, and an example use. No major gaps.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage, and the description adds practical context ('package+version+ecosystem triples', 'e.g. requirements.txt') that goes beyond the schema labels, aiding agent 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 uses specific verb 'scan' and resource 'packages at once for known vulnerabilities', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like osv.security.get (single package).
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 gives clear examples ('requirements.txt or package.json dependencies') and context ('full dependency tree security audits'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives.
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 (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) indicate a mutating but non-destructive action. Description adds value by disclosing cost ($0.0083/SMS) and return values (message SID and delivery status), which go beyond annotations. No contradiction detected.
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?
Description is extremely concise: one sentence plus pricing, with no superfluous words. It uses an emoji for visual cue and front-loads the action. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool being simple, the description covers purpose, prerequisite (Twilio number), cost, and return values. Since an output schema exists, return values are further detailed elsewhere. The description is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect.
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 baseline is 3. Description does not add new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides (E.164 format for to/from, max length for body). Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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?
Description clearly states 'Send SMS message to any phone number worldwide' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling SMS tools by specifying 'Twilio' and including pricing, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
Description explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Requires a Twilio phone number as sender.' It gives clear context about sending worldwide and pricing. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
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 value beyond annotations by explaining that each call runs independently with its own billing, returns per-call status/data/cost/duration, and that the batch wrapper is free. This clarifies behavior and cost implications not covered by readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint. 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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. Key details (limits, parallel execution, return format, pricing) are front-loaded and each sentence adds value. Emoji adds visual emphasis without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (per context signals) and the input schema covers all parameters, the description provides sufficient context: concurrency limits, batching advantage, return structure, and cost model. No gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters in detail. The description does not add new information about parameters beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 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 tool executes up to 20 tool calls in parallel, with a specific action verb ('Execute') and resource ('tool calls'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform single calls by highlighting batching and concurrency.
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 explains when to use this tool (to reduce round-trips for multiple independent calls) with a concrete benefit ('Save 5x round-trips vs sequential calls'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for dependent calls requiring sequential order) or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds that results include podcast titles, publishers, episode counts, and descriptions, and that it is paginated. No contradictions.
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, well-structured sentence that includes purpose, example genres, and return fields. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description provides all necessary details: genre IDs, pagination, and response content. It is comprehensive for the agent to decide and use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with genre_id and page already described. The description enriches the 'genre_id' parameter with example values (e.g., 93=Business) and notes that omitting it gives overall best. This adds meaningful context beyond 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 tool's purpose: 'Get curated lists of the best podcasts by genre' with specific genre IDs and examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'media.podcast.search' by focusing on curated 'best' lists rather than general search.
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 when to use (for curated best podcasts by genre) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks comparison to siblings like 'media.podcast.trending' or 'podcasts.listennotes.search'.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds that it returns a direct image URL, which is not in annotations. No contradictions. Additional behavioral context about output type is useful.
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 key purpose, no waste. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, description doesn't need to detail return structure. Mentions direct image URL and service (goqr.me). Covers all necessary aspects for a generation 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions and defaults. Description lists parameters generically ('size, color, background, format, ecc') but does not add new semantic value 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?
Clear verb 'Generate' and resource 'QR code image URL' are stated. Distinguishes from sibling tool 'qrserver.qr.read' by specifying generation. Mentions return of direct image URL.
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?
States when to use (encoding text/URL into QR code) and mentions customization options. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but sibling tool is for reading QR codes, so context is clear.
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 and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about the return content (financing actions, APR rates, monthly payments) 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?
Three concise sentences front-load the core purpose and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only rate lookup with 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description adequately outlines inputs (state, amount, term, vehicle type, credit score) and outputs (rates, payments, actions).
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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description only restates filtering capabilities (vehicle type and credit tier) without adding new semantic meaning 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 it retrieves auto loan rate decisions for new and used vehicles from US lenders, including specific output like APR rates and monthly payments. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mortgage or personal loan rate tools.
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 use for auto loan decisions and mentions filtering by vehicle type and credit tier. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other loan types, the title and context make the intended use clear.
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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds return value context (APR rates, monthly payments) beyond annotations, but does not disclose any behavioral caveats. Since annotations cover safety, a 4 is appropriate.
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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action, then lists key outputs and filter options. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (context signal shows 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to fully explain return structure, and it adequately covers the tool's purpose and inputs. Complete for a read-only query 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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by amount, term, and credit score tier, which merely paraphrases the schema. No additional meaning is added beyond what the schema already provides.
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 gets personal loan rate decisions (specific verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings (auto, heloc, mortgage) by specifying 'personal' and listing return types.
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 personal loan rate decisions, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative sibling tools. Context signals show siblings, so the usage context is clear but no exclusion 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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context about data coverage (all Indian banks) and licensing, which complements the safety profile. No contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with a single parameter and output schema, the description covers purpose, data scope, licensing, and expected output fields. It is complete and self-contained.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed description of the required parameter (ifsc_code format). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only hinting at the output fields. Baseline 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 tool's action ('Look up') and resource ('Indian bank branch details by IFSC code'), listing specific fields (name, address, capabilities). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are diverse and unrelated.
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 bank branch lookups and states the data is free and MIT-licensed. While no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given, the tool is unique among siblings, so the context is clear.
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 read-only (readOnlyHint=true), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true) hints. The description adds valuable context about data source ('Millions of MLS listings (RapidAPI / Realtor.com data)'), which helps set expectations without contradicting any annotations.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists key filters and return data. It is concise yet informative, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for readability.
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 that an output schema exists, the description's mention of return fields (address, price, specs, photos) is sufficient. Annotations are present, and the parameter schema covers pagination. No critical missing context, though a brief note on default sorting or pagination behavior would slightly improve 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 100% schema coverage, each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds extra semantic guidance (e.g., 'use with state_code' for city, 'alternative to city+state' for postal_code), enhancing understanding beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and specifies the resource ('active for-sale property listings across the US'). It enumerates filter criteria and return fields, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like realestate.location.suggest or realestate.property.details.
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 clearly indicates the tool's scope (US properties for sale) and provides filter hints like 'use with state_code' and 'alternative to city+state'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, missing some side-by-side 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-modifying operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exact fields returned (name, category, glass, instructions, ingredients, measures, image) and sourcing from TheCocktailDB, which is beyond the annotations' scope.
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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and outcome, and the second provides context (discovery/recommendation) and source. No extraneous words; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple random retrieval tool with a single parameter and an output schema (present, though not detailed in the prompt), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and expected output. The context of discovery and source adds completeness without leaving 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?
The input schema includes a single 'count' parameter with a description stating it always returns 1 random cocktail. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description already explains the parameter, the main description adds minimal additional meaning beyond listing the returned fields. It reinforces the 'full details' aspect but does not clarify syntax or constraints 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 tool returns a random cocktail recipe with full details (name, category, glass, instructions, ingredients, measures, image). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool 'recipes.cocktail.search' (for targeted searching) by highlighting discovery and recommendations, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 indicates the tool is 'great for discovery and recommendations', suggesting its use when a random surprise or general exploration is desired. While it does not explicitly warn against usage (e.g., when a specific cocktail is needed), the sibling 'recipes.cocktail.search' is implicitly the alternative for targeted queries.
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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns 'Linked Open Data object IDs' and mentions the CC-BY license. No contradictions, but minimal additional behavioral disclosure.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then collection highlights, then license. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich annotations, complete schema with descriptions, and existing output schema, the description adds the missing context about return type (IDs), license, and collection scope. Fully adequate for a search tool.
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?
Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description adds concrete examples for each parameter (e.g., 'Night Watch', '1642') enhancing meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 with examples justifies 4.
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 'Search', resource '800,000+ artworks', and scope 'Rijksmuseum'. It distinguishes from sibling tool rijks.art.details by noting that the search returns object IDs for use with that tool.
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool (for searching artworks) and directs the agent to the sibling tool rijks.art.details for full metadata. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides clear alternative.
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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it handles multiple identifier types and provides all representations, which is useful behavioral context. No contradictions or missing critical traits for a read-only, idempotent tool.
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: first sentence defines core functionality, second provides examples and context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. Highly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations, full schema coverage, and existence of output schema, the description is complete. It covers all necessary aspects: input types, output types, use case, and differentiation. No gaps relevant to agent selection and 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 both parameters well-described in the schema. The description reiterates examples but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. 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 tool converts any chemical identifier to SMILES, InChI, and InChIKey, specifying input types (name, CAS, SMILES, InChIKey) and output types. It positions itself as 'the only universal chemical ID converter,' effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like science.chem.formula or chemistry.pubchem.properties.
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 guidance on when to use the tool (for converting chemical identifiers) and context ('essential for chemistry workflows and cross-database lookups'). It implies exclusivity but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, leaving room for slight improvement.
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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds specifics on returned properties (bulk modulus, shear modulus, etc.) and mentions full 6x6 elastic tensor format. 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 sentences with zero wasted words. First sentence states purpose and specific properties. Second sentence provides usage context. Information is front-loaded and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (implied) and clear annotations, the description covers all needed details: what the tool does, what parameter is required, and when to use it. Complete for a single-parameter read-only 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 has 100% coverage with a description for material_id that already lists returned properties. The main description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?
Description starts with clear verb 'Get', lists specific properties (bulk modulus, shear modulus, etc.), and explicitly states purpose for 'structural materials screening and mechanical simulations'. Distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's from Materials Project and focusing on elastic properties.
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?
Description clearly states when to use ('Essential for structural materials screening and mechanical simulations'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative sibling tools. Context is clear enough for 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about return values (DFT-computed properties) and data provenance (DOE/Lawrence Berkeley Lab), which is helpful but not critical 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?
Description is a single dense paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, usage examples, data source, and license. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: search criteria, return properties, typical filter combinations, and data attribution. No gaps remain.
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?
Input schema covers all 8 parameters with 100% coverage. The description enhances these by providing concrete example values and use cases (e.g., 'band_gap 1-3 eV', 'elements Li,Fe,O + is_stable'), which add meaning beyond the basic schema descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states the tool searches '150,000+ inorganic materials by chemical formula, elements, band gap, stability, or metallic character'. It distinguishes from siblings like science.materials.details and science.materials.elasticity by being the general search entry point, and provides concrete search examples.
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?
Description provides clear examples of filters (semiconductors, battery cathodes) and mentions data source and license. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over more specific siblings (e.g., science.materials.details for single material lookup).
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 safe read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context: uses BLAST, returns ranked PDB entity IDs, and configurable thresholds, which are not covered by 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 concise: two front-loaded sentences that state purpose, method, and output without extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and typical use case, making it complete for selection and 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 covers 100% of parameters with good descriptions. The tool description repeats some parameter info (e.g., identity cutoff, E-value) but does not add significant new semantics 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 it searches protein structures by amino acid sequence similarity using BLAST, specifies input and output, and distinguishes from siblings like science.pdb.ligand and science.pdb.structure.
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 context for use (homology modeling, structure prediction) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives to this tool.
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 behavior. The description adds context by specifying the fraud score range (0-100) and listing returned data types (geolocation, abuse velocity, connection type, 9+ risk indicators), going beyond annotations 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?
Two sentences: first describes the action and main outputs concisely, second provides a usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context: core purpose, fraud score range, types of indicators, and practical use case. It comprehensively sets agent expectations without needing more detail.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning for parameters beyond what is already in the schema. It focuses on outputs rather than parameter usage guidance.
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 it checks an IP address for fraud signals, listing specific detections (proxy, VPN, Tor, bot, crawler) and outputs (fraud score, geolocation, abuse velocity). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like geo.ip.geolocation and other security.ipqs tools by focusing on fraud detection.
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 use for e-commerce fraud prevention and general IP risk assessment, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No direct comparison to sibling tools provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: what it detects, output details (fraud score, location), and support for international numbers. 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and key details. Every element adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description sufficiently covers input, purpose, and key features. It mentions international support and country filtering, leaving no obvious 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 coverage is 100% with existing parameter descriptions. The description adds context by explaining that the tool uses a country filter for national format numbers and that strictness controls fraud detection, but does not exceed what the schema already provides. 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 tool checks phone numbers for fraud risk, listing specific detections (VOIP, prepaid, line type, etc.) and returns a fraud score and location. The tool name and description distinguish it from siblings (email, ip, url checks) by focusing on phone-specific attributes.
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?
While the description implicitly indicates this tool is for phone number fraud detection, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., other IPQS tools). No when-not or alternative recommendations 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 provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context like 'CC0-only by default' and the scope of institutions covered, which goes beyond the 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 two well-structured sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing details on filters and scope. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's 7 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description fully covers the main use case, filter options, and default behavior. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the types of records (e.g., 'objects' as 3D objects, 'species' as scientific specimens) and the default CC0 filter, enhancing understanding 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 'Full-text search across 11M+ records from 19 Smithsonian museums' and lists specific filterable types (art, artifacts, specimens, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'smithsonian.collection.record' by focusing on search across the entire collection.
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 broad search but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus 'smithsonian.collection.record' or other alternatives. It provides clear context on filters but no guidance on 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the specific return fields and an example handle format, providing additional behavioral context beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions.
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 sentences: the first clearly states purpose and output fields, the second provides parameter context. No wasted words, front-loaded key information. Perfectly concise for a simple read tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return values need no further explanation. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description and schema together provide complete context for a single-parameter profile lookup tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the handle parameter. The description supplements with an example handle format (e.g., 'jay.bsky.team'), adding meaningful practical guidance beyond the schema's own description.
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?
Description explicitly states it retrieves a Bluesky user profile with specific fields (display name, bio, avatar, follower/following/post counts, creation date) by handle. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like social.bluesky.feed and social.bluesky.search.
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 mentions lookup by handle and provides an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., social.bluesky.feed for posts or social.bluesky.search for searching profiles by query). Usage context is implied but not explicitly delineated.
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 readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds behavioral details: returns latest, window_max, and last N observations, and mentions the source. No contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the most important information. Every word adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description adequately explains the three types of data returned, parameter nuance, and data source. No additional details are needed.
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?
Schema covers points parameter with full description (100% coverage). The description adds value by noting that the window_max field always scans the full 6-hour window regardless of points value, which is not in 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 tool provides the current planetary K-index with G1-G5 storm severity classification, plus the maximum in a rolling 6-hour window and recent 1-minute observations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aurora or solar_regions.
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 the tool is for geomagnetic storm monitoring but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like space.swpc.aurora. No when-not or exclusion criteria 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 declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (nutrition facts, dietary labels, etc.), going beyond the annotations 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 one concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately lists key outputs. Every word adds value with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on what the tool does and lists the components of 'full recipe details'. For a single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, this is complete.
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% coverage for the single parameter 'id', with a description that explains its source. The tool description adds no further parameter information, meeting the baseline.
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 ('Get full recipe details by ID') and specifies what is included (ingredients, instructions, nutrition facts, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like recipes.search and recipes.analyze.
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 indicates the ID comes from recipe_search or by_ingredients results, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, which prevents a top 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 mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the description adds value by noting the scope of data (live and historical) and the breadth of leagues (100+). 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key features. No waste or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, filtering options, data sources, and coverage (leagues and time range). It is complete for a data retrieval 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?
All 4 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description simply restates the parameters as filters without adding new semantic details, meeting the baseline but not 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 tool provides basketball games and scores, specifying major leagues (NBA, EuroLeague) and coverage of 100+ leagues worldwide. It distinguishes itself from sibling sports tools by explicitly mentioning basketball and the specific data source (API-Sports).
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 indicates when to use the tool (retrieve basketball games/scores) and lists filterable parameters (date, league, season, team). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, which would improve clarity.
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. The description adds behavioral details: returns scores, teams, status (Final/In Progress/Scheduled), and real-time scores. This adds value beyond annotations 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and output fields, second lists filters and data source. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a robust input schema (100% coverage), informative annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description completes the picture by clarifying the sports covered, output fields, and data source. No gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by date, season, or team, which maps to parameters, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter (e.g., sport enum, limit, date format).
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 specifies the resource: 'NBA and NFL game results by date — scores, teams, status'. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly limiting coverage to NBA and NFL, unlike other sports tools that may cover different leagues or sports.
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 mentions filtering options ('Filter by date, season, or team') and states the tool covers all NBA and NFL games, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other sports or name alternatives like sports.basketball.games or sports.football.*.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description's role is reduced. It adds context about the randomness and generated fields, which aligns with annotations. No contradictions.
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 sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose, then lists fields and filters. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (3 optional params, output schema exists, rich annotations), the description is sufficient. It covers purpose, fields, filters, and use context. Agent has enough to use correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions nationality and gender filtering, which is already in schema descriptions. It does not add new semantic meaning 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 tool generates realistic random user profiles with specific fields (name, email, phone, address, age, gender, photo). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its specific focus on user profile generation for testing/demo.
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 explicitly states the use case: 'For testing and demo data (RandomUser.me)', providing clear context. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, no similar sibling tools exist requiring differentiation.
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 discloses that the tool lists 90+ languages and provides localized names based on the display_language parameter. Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds context about the output scope.
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, no fluff, and front-loads the key purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the optional localization feature, and the approximate count of languages.
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 already has a clear description for display_language. The tool description adds little beyond what the schema provides, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline 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 tool lists all 90+ supported translation languages with localized names, and the name and title reinforce this. It is distinct from siblings like translate.text.translate and translate.text.detect.
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 indicates when to use it (when you need the list of languages) and mentions the optional display_language parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.
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 and idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context: data is updated every 15 minutes and covers rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs across the US. No contradictions.
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 sentences efficiently convey purpose, scope, update frequency, and prerequisite. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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, output schema present), the description adequately covers data type, update frequency, geographic scope, and how to obtain the required site number. No 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?
Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context for 'site_no' by mentioning water.sites, but doesn't detail parameter usage beyond that. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description adds marginal 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 that it retrieves real-time streamflow, gage height, water temperature, and conductance for a USGS monitoring site. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'water.usgs.sites' by focusing on real-time data retrieval versus site discovery.
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 (getting real-time data) and explicitly references the prerequisite tool 'water.sites' to find site numbers. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative tools but is otherwise helpful.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the forecast duration ('today + ~5 days') and pollutants (ozone, PM2.5), which are not in annotations. No contradictions.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, scope, and source without extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (3 params, full schema coverage, and an output schema), the description is complete. The agent has enough information to understand the tool's functionality and what it returns.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with full descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 explicitly states 'Multi-day AQI forecast' for a US ZIP, specifying pollutants (ozone + PM2.5) and source (EPA AirNow). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like current_zip or forecast_latlng.
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 use for ZIP-based forecasts, which differentiates it from lat/lng alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is clear but could be more directive.
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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns coordinates and is meant for autocomplete. Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world, so the description complements 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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, clear output), the description is complete: it specifies input usage, output contents, and typical workflow integration. The existence of an output schema further covers return details.
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 single parameter 'q' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description only reiterates the example, adding minimal new semantic value 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 that this tool searches and autocompletes location names, returning matching cities with coordinates. It distinguishes itself from sibling weather tools by explicitly noting that its output coordinates are intended for use with other weather tools.
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 usage context: 'Use result coordinates with other weather tools'. It implies this is a preprocessing step, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or name specific alternatives.
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 safe reads (readOnlyHint, no destruction); description adds context about headless browser rendering and JS execution, which is useful and consistent with annotations. No contradictory information.
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?
Description is extremely concise: three short sentences with emoji for attention, front-loading action and purpose, then usage guidance, then output. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated in context), the description adequately covers action, use case, and output format. For a single-parameter tool with clear behavior, this is complete.
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 has 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter, with description repeating tool purpose. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, justifying the baseline score.
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 ('Render a URL with headless browser'), the resource ('JS-rendered HTML'), and distinguishes from raw HTTP and sibling tools like 'web.scrape.extract' by specifying use for SPAs and dynamic content.
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?
Explicitly says to use for SPAs, React/Vue apps, or dynamic content, and implies not to use when raw HTTP suffices. It could be improved by directly naming alternative tools like 'web.scrape.extract'.
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 transparency about the free limit and domain, beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., slug conflicts) or other side effects. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only or destructive, so the description provides moderate 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 extremely concise (one line) with front-loaded key information using an emoji and action verb. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, output schema exists, and all parameters are described, the description covers the essential purpose, domain, and limit. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the slug parameter with an example ('my-link' → apibase.short.gy/my-link), which is not in the schema—enhancing 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 tool creates a short URL from any long URL, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like web.url.stats or web.scrape.* by focusing on shortening.
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?
It provides context such as the domain (apibase.short.gy) and free monthly limit (1,000 links/month), helping the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.
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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds context about the exact output (194 countries, codes, names) and a practical use case, which is valuable beyond the 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 sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose, content, and usage hint. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the simple nature of the tool, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, how to use it with sibling tools, and the default scope.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what is already in the schema, though it does reinforce the purpose of the parameters implicitly.
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 lists WHO member countries and territories with codes and names, and provides a specific use case (using codes with who.data). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the resource and linking to related tools.
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 explicitly recommends using returned country codes with 'who.data' to filter health indicators. While it does not directly exclude alternative uses, the context provided is clear and offers practical guidance for integration.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which already cover safety. The description adds the method (DNS brute-force enumeration) and lists return fields (subdomain names, record types, IPs, status), providing helpful behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.
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 sentences front-load the action and output, then add use cases. No wasted words; efficiently conveys all necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (inferred from context signals), the description need not detail return values but does so anyway. It explains the method, output fields, and use cases. For a single-parameter tool, this is fully complete.
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 only parameter (domain) has full schema coverage (description: 'Domain name to discover subdomains...'). The description reinforces purpose but does not add new parameter-level details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already does the job.
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 that the tool discovers subdomains via DNS brute-force enumeration. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like whois.dns.lookup (which retrieves DNS records) and whoisjson.ssl.check (for SSL) by specifying the technique and output.
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 use cases: security reconnaissance, asset inventory, infrastructure mapping. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes it clear when to use this over other DNS tools. Slight gap in explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: mentions multiple results ranked by proximity, accuracy type, and source – crucial context for agent decision-making without contradicting any annotation.
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, dense sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, scope, and outputs without filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and all information is relevant.
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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the primary purpose, geographic scope, and behavior (multiple results, proximity ranked). It is complete for a simple reverse geocode tool, though no mention of rate limits or API keys (not expected in general).
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with full descriptions. The description does not add any information beyond what the schema already provides for lat, lon, and limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 action ('reverse geocode'), the resource ('latitude/longitude to a US or Canada address'), and specifies the output (formatted address, parsed components, accuracy, source). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling 'address.geocodio.geocode' by using 'reverse' and explicitly limiting scope to US/Canada.
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?
While the description clearly implies usage when you have coordinates and need a US/Canada address, it does not explicitly contrasts with sibling reverse-geocoding tools like 'geo.address.reverse' or provide when-not-to-use guidance. However, the geographic scope gives strong selection criteria.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by listing the exact fields returned (accounts due date, charges, insolvency history, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key fields. Every word adds value, with no wasted or redundant content.
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?
The description covers all major aspects of the tool: input, output fields, and data source. Given the simple one-parameter call and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand usage and expected results. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or edge cases.
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 single parameter 'company_number' is well-described with examples (Barclays, Tesco) and a source hint ('Get from search results'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type and description.
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 specifies the verb ('details') and resource (UK company by Companies House number) and lists the specific fields returned (name, type, status, SIC codes, etc.). It is distinct from the sibling tool 'business.ukcompany.search' which searches by name.
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 use when a company number is available, and the parameter description suggests getting the number from search results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the search sibling or other alternatives. The context of sibling tools provides some 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context (turn-by-turn, distance, time, source), which is consistent. No contradictions. A slight gap: it doesn't mention that results are based on OSM data limits or attribution.
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 purpose, travel modes, and data source. Every word adds value. No redundant phrases. Ideal for quick scanning.
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?
With 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It covers the core functionality and key options. Minor omission: defaults for mode/lang/units are only in schema, but that's acceptable given schema coverage.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by mentioning travel modes explicitly, which the schema lists as an enum, and by indicating return types (distance, time). This reduces ambiguity beyond the schema alone.
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 it retrieves turn-by-turn directions for multiple travel modes (driving, walking, cycling, transit) between two points, including distance and time, and specifies the data source (Geoapify/OSM). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geocoding or place search.
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 routing directions, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over geo.address.geocode (for coordinates) or geo.navigation.isochrone (for reachable areas). The travel mode enumeration helps, but explicit comparisons would strengthen clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by naming the data source (NEA) and license (Open Data Licence v1.0), providing extra behavioral context 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes all essential information without unnecessary words.
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 optional parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the real-time nature, geographic scope, duration, and data source. It lacks a note on return format, but output schema exists, making it sufficiently complete.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the optional date parameter. The description adds no further parameter details, so baseline 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 it provides a real-time 2-hour weather forecast for 51 Singapore zones from NEA, distinguishing it from other weather tools by geography and duration.
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 short-term Singapore weather but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like noaa.weather.forecast or weather.conditions.forecast.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, which align with the description's validation-only nature. The description adds input formatting details (spaces allowed, auto-stripped) and mentions 'detailed breakdown' as output, but could further disclose potential limitations like country-specific validation rules.
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 succinct sentences cover purpose, output details, and scope. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (not shown but referenced), the description adequately covers input format, output content, and geographic scope. For a simple validation tool, this is fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'iban' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema by noting that spaces are allowed and auto-stripped, clarifying input flexibility.
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 validates IBANs and retrieves associated bank info (BIC/SWIFT, bank name, address, country, currency, SEPA membership), with explicit scope of 80+ countries. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'iban.banking.calculate' by its specific validation and info retrieval purpose.
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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for generating IBANs, use 'iban.banking.calculate').
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context (uses NSRDB data, returns specific fields) that complements annotations without contradiction. It does not discuss limitations or edge cases, but the annotations cover safety.
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 three sentences: purpose, data source, return fields + uniqueness. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff. It is efficient and 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?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, data source, uniqueness, and key return fields. It could mention required parameters or examples, but the schema covers those. Overall, it is complete for a tool with rich annotations and 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'global location,' which is consistent with latitude/longitude, but this is already clear from the schema descriptions. Therefore, the description adds minimal value for parameter semantics.
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 ('Calculate'), the specific metric ('monthly and annual AC energy production in kWh'), and the domain ('residential or commercial solar PV system at any global location'). It also mentions the data source and return fields. The distinctiveness from siblings is asserted with a uniqueness claim.
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 'Unique — no other tool in this catalog estimates solar PV output,' which provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also gives context about using NSRDB data.
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 declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds that it returns matching locations with coordinates, consistent with annotations. It also mentions integration with RapidAPI/Realtor.com, offering useful context 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?
Two sentences: the first conveys the core function and output, the second provides usage context. No unnecessary words, perfectly 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?
Given only one parameter and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and usage. It explains the autocomplete behavior and typical use case, leaving no critical gaps.
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 single parameter 'query' has 100% schema coverage with a description. The description adds example values ('Austin TX', '90210') that clarify the expected input format, adding value 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 verb 'autocomplete' and the resource 'location search for US real estate', specifying it returns cities, ZIP codes, and addresses with coordinates. This effectively distinguishes it from numerous sibling location tools that geocode or look up addresses.
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 explicitly says 'Use to find valid city/state codes for property searches (RapidAPI / Realtor.com data)', providing context for when to use this tool. While it doesn't list exclusions, the purpose is well-defined and differentiates from siblings.
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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds details about the output (dimensions, codes, timestamp) and confirms the read-only nature, complementing the annotations 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?
Two well-structured sentences cover purpose, usage, and an example. No redundant information; every sentence adds 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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and example adequately. Missing error handling is a minor gap given the output schema likely covers this.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with a detailed description for table_path. The description enriches this by providing example paths and explaining what constitutes a valid path, adding context beyond the schema alone.
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 retrieves metadata for a specific SCB table, listing returned elements (title, dimensions, valid value codes, timestamp). It distinguishes from sibling tools by advising use before scb.table_query and providing an example path.
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 explicitly recommends using this tool before scb.table_query to discover filter values, providing clear context. It does not enumerate when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds value by enumerating specific returned properties (band gap, formation energy, crystal structure, etc.) and confirming the data source (Materials Project, 150K+ materials), which goes 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, example, returned properties, and data scope. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the list of properties could be slightly more structured (e.g., bulleted). Every sentence adds 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 complexity (returns many computed properties) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent can expect. The list of property types is comprehensive, and the mention of database cross-references adds helpful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'material_id' has full schema coverage (100%). The description adds meaning by providing an example format and explicitly stating that IDs can be obtained from the sibling tool 'science.materials.search', which helps the agent understand how to source valid inputs.
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 retrieves DFT-computed properties for a material using a specific Materials Project ID, with an example (mp-149 for silicon). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'science.materials.elasticity' and implies using 'science.materials.search' to obtain IDs.
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 specifies when to use (when full computed properties are needed for a known material ID) and lists returned properties, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives beyond the mention of materials.search for ID lookup.
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, and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about the scale (1.5M+ sites) and return fields, but does not mention potential pagination or result limits. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise: two sentences covering the core function, parameters, return fields, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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?
The description covers the purpose, parameters, return values, and sibling tool guidance. However, it does not explain behavior when no parameters are provided (all are optional) or whether multiple filters can be combined. Despite this, completeness is high given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an 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?
All 4 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The main description does not add new semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, it 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.
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 function: searching over 1.5 million USGS water monitoring sites. It specifies the search criteria (state, county, bbox, site number) and return fields (site ID, station name, coordinates, altitude, HUC code), distinguishing it from related tools like water.realtime.
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 tells when to use this tool (searching for sites) and directs users to the sibling water.realtime tool for live data if they have a site number. This provides clear guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the two possible states ('running' with step names or 'completed' with full profile_json) and confirms it's free to poll. No contradictions.
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 (44 words) with no wasted text. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently conveys key information about states and free usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple polling tool with one parameter and output schema present, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the purpose, the states, and the response contents. It is complete and well-suited for agent selection.
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% coverage: one parameter (report_id) with a description explaining it's a UUID from aipush.market_report. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 verb 'Poll' and the resource 'status of a market intelligence report'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'aipush.market.report' which likely creates the report, so the purpose is unambiguous.
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 usage guidance: 'Poll until status = "completed" to get full profile_json'. It also mentions it's free to poll. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the context is sufficient.
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, idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces safe repeated polling and details return fields. No contradictions, but lacks info on rate limits 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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value—purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a polling status tool, the description is complete: it specifies when to use (after setup, before generate), what it returns, and safe polling. Output schema is present but not shown; description still provides key fields.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for website_domain. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 tool polls website readiness after setup_website and lists returned status fields. It differentiates from sibling tools like aipush.website.setup and aipush.pages.generate by specifying it is used between setup and generation.
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 gives explicit workflow guidance: wait for mip_status='ready' and cf_hostname_status='active' before calling generate_page. It also states it is safe to poll repeatedly, clarifying its idempotent nature.
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 value beyond the provided annotations (readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true) by listing the specific output fields (text, word count, confidence, language, speaker labels). This gives the agent a clear expectation of what will be returned, which annotations alone do not 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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and outputs, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has only one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool returns, the input requirement, and source of the input. Nothing important is missing.
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 schema covers the parameter with a basic description, but the tool description adds critical context: 'Use transcript_id from submit (AssemblyAI)'. This tells the agent exactly where to obtain the ID, which is not evident from the schema alone.
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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'completed transcription text', and lists specific data fields (word count, confidence score, etc.). It also references the sibling tool 'submit' to clarify the input source, effectively distinguishing it from other transcription tools.
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 explicitly tells the agent to use the 'transcript_id from submit (AssemblyAI)', providing a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the context of retrieving a completed transcription naturally implies it should be used after submission and when status indicates completion.
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, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the scope (1,400+ datasets) and return fields, which is useful. No contradiction with annotations, and it enhances understanding without repeating structured data.
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 sentences, extremely concise, front-loaded with the main action and examples. No wasted words, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Completeness is high given the schema and annotations. The description covers purpose, scope, return values, and cross-tool usage. For a search tool with full schema description and annotations, no missing critical 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 coverage is 100% and schema descriptions already explain query, category, and limit. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only implies the search action. Baseline 3 is appropriate as per guidelines.
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 it searches CDC health datasets, specifies the count (1,400+), gives example topics (COVID-19, chronic disease, etc.), and explicitly lists return fields (dataset ID, name, description, category). It differentiates from the sibling 'cdc.health.query' by saying 'Use dataset IDs with cdc.query to fetch data'.
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 instructs when to use this tool (searching for datasets) and then to use 'cdc.query' for fetching data, providing a clear alternative. It also indicates the domain (US Gov).
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, idempotent behavior. Description adds valuable context: data source, units, time range, and default return period, enhancing understanding beyond structured 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 sentences, highly concise, front-loaded with the most critical information (what, source, units, time range, default). No superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers source, units, time range, and default period. For a simple read-only tool, it is fully 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?
Schema already describes the 'years' parameter with range and default. Description adds that default is 10 years and data is monthly, providing extra semantic clarity.
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?
Clearly states the tool returns atmospheric methane concentration monthly readings in ppb from NOAA ESRL since 1983. Distinguishes from sibling climate indicators by naming methane and highlighting its role as second most important greenhouse gas.
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?
Implicitly guides use through specific resource (methane) and context (greenhouse gas). Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the tool name and sibling set (CO2, temperature) provide sufficient differentiation.
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns advisory IDs with links to OSV.dev, providing return format information 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?
Three concise sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then scope and return format, then comparison to sibling.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, ecosystem scope, return format, and relationship to sibling 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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it mentions cross-ecosystem support which is implicit in the enum.
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 it lists security advisories from OSV for a specific package version, and explicitly mentions cross-ecosystem support. It distinguishes itself from osv.query by noting version-specific lookup, providing clear differentiation.
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 says 'Complements osv.query for version-specific lookups', indicating when to use this tool vs the sibling osv.security.query for general OSV queries.
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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context about scope (all versions, 50M+ packages) and cross-ecosystem nature, providing value beyond the annotations 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?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with key purpose and scope. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, read-only), the description covers purpose, ecosystems, and relationship to alternatives. Output schema exists, so return value documentation is not needed.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples of package names (express, requests, etc.) and lists ecosystems, aiding parameter understanding 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 'Get package metadata from Google deps.dev' with specific resources (all versions, default version, ecosystem). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing cross-ecosystem unified view, covering six major ecosystems.
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 notes 'Complements npm/PyPI registries with cross-ecosystem unified view,' indicating when to prefer this tool over ecosystem-specific ones. While explicit when-not-to-use is absent, the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). Description adds 'full JS rendering' and 'Returns temporary PDF download URL', providing useful behavioral context 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?
Description is two sentences with front-loaded key information. No wasted words; each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, return type, and rendering behavior completely for a simple 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. Description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides, so 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 specifies 'Capture any web page URL as a PDF using headless Chrome with full JS rendering', clearly stating the action (capture), resource (web page URL), and output (PDF). It distinguishes from siblings like document.pdf.from_html which takes HTML input.
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?
Provides clear usage scenarios ('perfect for archiving pages, generating reports from dashboards, or creating printable snapshots') but does not mention when to avoid or use alternatives like document.pdf.from_html.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the data source (OpenFEMA), date range, and return fields ('disaster number, title, dates, designated programs'). It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false).
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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and filters; the second covers return fields and source. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 optional parameters, no required, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, filters, return values, and data source. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning specific incident types (though incomplete list) and return fields not in schema. It provides context for the 'limit' parameter implicitly but not explicitly.
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 searches US federal disaster declarations from 1953 to present, listing specific filters (state, incident type, year) and return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like fema.disaster.assistance and fema.disaster.flood_claims by focusing on declarations.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. It implies usage by listing filters but lacks explicit when-to-use 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: the output format (list of companies with values, top examples), period format specifics, and the tool's scale (2,649 companies). This goes beyond the structured 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 three well-structured sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by an illustrative example and a note on period format. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, examples, and period format. No critical information is missing; it is complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds examples for tag and period (e.g., 'Revenues', 'CY2023', 'CY2023Q4I') and clarifies default unit ('USD'). This enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions.
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 compares a financial metric across all SEC-reporting companies for a period, with a specific example (Revenues for CY2023) and output highlights. The title 'Cross-Company Financial Comparison' distinguishes it from sibling tools like finance.edgar.company_facts (single company).
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 gives clear context for when to use (broad market comparison) and contrasts with alternatives ('Free alternative to Bloomberg/FactSet'). However, it does not explicitly exclude usage for single-company queries or compare to other Edgar siblings like xbrl_concept.
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, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: data source (Brazilian census), time range (since 1930), license (CC BY 4.0). No contradictions.
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 purpose, uses case, and license. Extremely concise with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, data source, time coverage, license, and use case. No gaps in completeness relative to tool complexity.
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?
Input schema covers the single parameter 'name' with description. Description provides concrete examples ('MARIA', 'JOSE'), adding clarity beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but example usage raises it to 4.
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?
Clearly states the tool provides first-name popularity time-series by decade since 1930 from Brazilian census data. The target use case (cultural/marketing research) is specified, and it is distinct from sibling IBGE tools like 'gov.ibge.cnae' or 'gov.ibge.municipalities'.
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?
Explicitly mentions use case for cultural/marketing research, guiding when to use. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided, but the context is clear given no similar sibling tools exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate safe read operations. The description adds value by mentioning the data source (US National Library of Medicine) and listing return fields, 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?
Two concise sentences covering purpose, filters, and output, with no unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete: it specifies input filters, output fields, data source, and scale. No missing essential information for a search 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 each parameter having a clear description. The description adds examples (e.g., 'cancer', 'pembrolizumab') but does not provide novel semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states the tool searches 577,000+ clinical trials worldwide with filters (condition, intervention, sponsor, status, phase) and lists return fields (NCT ID, title, status, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools (health.clinical.stats, health.clinical.study) by its focus on search with filtering.
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?
Description implies the tool is for searching trials with filters, but does not explicitly specify when to use this over alternatives (e.g., for statistics or single study details). It provides clear context for typical use cases (e.g., cancer, diabetes).
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by listing the specific return fields (e.g., class availability, running days) and clarifying the date range (within 120 days). 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 two sentences long, with the purpose immediately stated and supported by concise detail about returned data. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with three required parameters and clear return values listed. The description, combined with the input schema and annotations, provides complete context for an agent to use it correctly. The return fields are explicitly mentioned, so no output schema is needed.
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?
Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, but the description adds meaning by providing concrete examples of station codes and date format, and advises using a companion tool for code discovery. This goes beyond the schema's 'Examples' field.
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: 'Search trains running between two Indian railway stations.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (trains), and context (between stations). It lists returned fields (train number, name, times, class availability, running days), distinguishing it from sibling tools like `irctc.stations.search` which searches for station codes.
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 usage context by mentioning that station codes should be in '3-5 uppercase letters' and recommends using `irctc.station_search` to discover codes. It also gives examples (NDLS, CSMT, etc.) and date format constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like `irctc.trains.status`. Still, the hints are helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds significant context beyond annotations: pagination (100 per page), sort order (newest first), returned fields, hourly update frequency, and API source. Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, and description aligns perfectly.
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 covering purpose, pagination, output fields, update frequency, geographic focus, and API nature. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description still lists key return fields. It also provides update frequency, geographic scope, API type, and pagination details. No missing context for a simple browse tool.
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 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'page' parameter's effect ('100 jobs per page', no server-side search) and default behavior, which enriches the minimal schema definition.
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 browses European job listings with specific details (100 per page, sorted by newest). It explicitly names EU countries like Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Netherlands, distinguishing it from other job tools on the server.
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 use for EU-focused job browsing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like jobs.adzuna.search or jobs.jooble.search. No when-not or exclusion criteria 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns current status, delivery events timeline, origin/destination, estimated delivery date, service type, and official data for 220+ countries. 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 two efficient sentences: first sentence states outputs, second sentence states service coverage and geographical scope. No wasted words, well front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tracking tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential information: what it does, what data it returns, and its scope. No gaps given the annotations and output schema.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed description including examples. The tool's description reinforces that the parameter is a tracking number and lists the supported services. This adds context 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 action (track a DHL shipment), the resource (tracking number), and the outputs (status, events, origin/destination, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like logistics.tracking.list or logistics.tracking.register by specifying DHL and the full set of returned data.
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 explicitly mentions when to use the tool (to track a DHL shipment) but does not include when not to use it or mention alternative tools. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer its context relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: it returns 'all serving sizes' and a comprehensive list of nutrients (calories, fats, etc.), plus the data scale '2.3M+ foods'. This provides value beyond annotations and does not 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?
The description is a single concise sentence that fronts the core purpose, then lists key nutrients and data scale. No wasted words; every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single required parameter, full schema coverage, presence of output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description completes the context by detailing what data is returned. It implicitly connects to the sibling search tool, making the overall usage pattern clear.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of 'food_id'. The tool description reiterates 'by FatSecret ID' but adds no new detail beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 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 function: 'Complete nutritional profile for a food item by FatSecret ID'. It specifies the resource (food item) and action (retrieve profile). The mention of ID differentiates it from the sibling 'nutrition.fatsecret.search' tool, implying that this tool is for details after a search.
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 that the tool requires a FatSecret ID obtained from search results, providing clear context on when to use it (after search). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the search tool as an alternative, so it stops short of full 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?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds return fields (summary, CVSS, affected packages, references) 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?
Two concise sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with action and resource. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present and one clearly described parameter, description provides sufficient context. Covers all needed information for invocation.
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?
Schema covers 100% parameters; description adds concrete ID format examples (GHSA, CVE-2021, PYSEC) that enhance understanding beyond schema's generic description.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves full vulnerability details by specific ID formats (OSV, CVE, ecosystem), distinguishes from siblings like osv.security.query and osv.security.batch, and lists return content.
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?
Explicitly specifies when to use: retrieve full details for a single vulnerability by ID. While it doesn't exclude batch/query siblings, the context and ID examples guide 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 safe read operations. The description adds value by specifying what results include (CVE/GHSA IDs, severity, counts) and data sources (OSV.dev, GitHub, NVD, etc.). No contradictions.
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 no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and key details. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given full schema, output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains purpose, output, and data sources. No major gaps for a single-package vulnerability check.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds example values (lodash, 4.17.20) and mentions the wide ecosystem support (14+ more), which provides extra context beyond 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 it checks vulnerabilities for a specific package version across many ecosystems, with specific output (CVE/GHSA IDs, severity, counts). It distinguishes from siblings like batch or get by specifying single package version.
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?
Clearly states the tool is for checking vulnerabilities of a single package version. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., bulk queries) or alternatives, but the context is clear enough given sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the 30-second cache and how to bypass it via the 'refresh' parameter. No contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and fields, followed by usage context. Every sentence is informative and concise with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and the sole parameter. No additional details are needed for this simple read 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?
The description repeats the schema's parameter description for 'refresh' verbatim. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no new meaning, a baseline 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 explicitly states the verb 'Read' and resource 'Telnyx account balance', listing specific fields returned (available credit, currency, pending charges, credit limit). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like phone.telnyx.estimate or phone.telnyx.sms_*.
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 a concrete use case ('cost monitoring before placing high-volume sends'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools. It implies context effectively.
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 (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) already indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that it returns an array of specific fields (message_id, from, to, text, status, created_at, cost). It does not cover aspects like auth or rate limits, but given the annotations, 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 sentences: first covers purpose and filters, second states return structure. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds 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?
The description mentions return fields and optional filters. However, it does not explain pagination behavior beyond limit (e.g., how to get next page), sorting, or default ordering. Given the output schema exists (implied) and annotations cover safety, the description is slightly incomplete for a tool that may return partial results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the direction enum values, specifies date_from format (ISO 8601), and notes the default limit (25) and maximum (100). Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches the details.
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 'List recent Telnyx messages', specifies the resource (Telnyx messages), and mentions optional filters. The tool name and title are unambiguous. Among sibling Telnyx tools, this is the only one for listing messages, making its purpose distinct.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sending SMS or checking status. However, the sibling tools (e.g., sms_na, status) have clearly different purposes, so the usage context is implicitly clear but could be improved with 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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it returns recommended actions, APR, payments, and confidence scores, and covers 4,300+ lenders. No contradictions.
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?
Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. First sentence states the core function, second lists outputs and supported products, third mentions filtering. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, outputs, supported products, and filtering. An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation. The tool is adequately described for selection.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description reinforces and contextualizes the parameters by mentioning filtering by state, amount, and credit tier, and supporting 30yr/15yr/ARM products. It adds value 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 tool's purpose: getting AI-powered mortgage rate decisions from US lenders, listing specific outputs (APR, monthly payments, confidence scores) and supported products (30yr/15yr fixed, ARM). This distinguishes it from siblings like auto, heloc, personal lending tools.
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 indicates use for mortgage rate decisions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools (auto, heloc, personal) are different but no direct comparison is made.
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 the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the response format (Linked Art JSON-LD) and noting the copyright, 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?
Two sentences carry all necessary information: purpose, content, format, prerequisite, and attribution. No extraneous words; information is front-loaded and easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers what is returned, the input format, the prerequisite step, and the attribution. Completeness is high given the tool's simplicity.
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 single parameter 'object_id' is well-documented in both the schema (with example and instruction to use rijks.search) and the description. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description reinforces the guidance.
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 retrieves full details for a Rijksmuseum artwork by object ID, listing included fields and format. It distinguishes from the sibling rijks.search by directing users to find IDs via search.
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?
It explicitly advises using rijks.search first to obtain object IDs, providing a concrete example. While it doesn't list when not to use, the prerequisite guidance is clear and sufficient.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details about traversal and return types (subcategories vs leaf nodes), consistent 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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, list of categories, explanation of return types, and navigation guidance. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's purpose of browsing a hierarchical tree, the description is complete. It explains starting point, navigation, and leaf endpoints. An output schema is present, so return format details are not needed.
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 schema covers the 'path' parameter 100% with a description. The tool description adds meaning by providing concrete examples and explaining the hierarchical structure and recursion, going 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 it is for browsing the SCB statistics database tree by path, lists top-level categories, and explains that leaf nodes are table descriptors. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like scb.tables.metadata.
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: use empty path for top-level, navigate hierarchically to find tables for scb.table_metadata. It implies the intended workflow but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses behavioral traits such as JavaScript rendering, anti-bot bypass, and proxy rotation, which complement the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). It adds value beyond annotations by detailing these capabilities, ensuring the agent understands the tool's scope and limitations.
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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's core function. Every sentence adds value: the first states the primary action and output formats, the second highlights key features, and the third emphasizes cost-effectiveness. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (handles JS, anti-bot, proxy), the description covers essential aspects: output formats, key features, and pricing. With an output schema present, return value details are not needed. The description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already provides clear descriptions for all parameters (url, format, readability, wait_for). The description merely echoes output formats and mentions 'LLM-ready output' but does not add significant new meaning 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 tool scrapes web pages and returns clean content in multiple formats (markdown, text, raw HTML). It highlights key capabilities like JavaScript rendering and anti-bot bypass, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scraping.spider.search (search) and other web scraping tools.
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 explicitly mentions handling JavaScript rendering and anti-bot bypass, indicating when this tool is appropriate. It implies usage for modern web pages requiring dynamic content extraction. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for specific cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: it returns specific fields (text, title, author, published date), handles up to 20 URLs, and eliminates scraping—disclosing its behavior beyond the annotations 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?
Two sentences, zero wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the main action and result, then additional context. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose, return fields, use case, and constraints. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it without confusion.
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 'urls' parameter. The description does not add meaningful parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema's own description. It reiterates the count limit (1-20 URLs) but does not explain formatting or constraints like whether URLs must be HTTP/HTTPS. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb 'Extract' and the resource 'clean readable content from up to 20 URLs'. It specifies the returned fields (text, title, author, published date) and distinguishes itself from scraping tools by claiming 'Eliminates scraping'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search.ai.web or scraping.spider.scrape.
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 a clear use case: 'Perfect for feeding web pages into agent context windows (Tavily)'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when raw HTML or links are needed). It implicitly guides usage but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by stating it protects agents from malicious URLs and lists returned fields (risk score, domain reputation, etc.), enriching behavioral understanding.
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-loading the action and key details. No redundant information; every sentence contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description appropriately summarizes return values without redundancy. It covers the tool's role in security scanning adequately for agent decision-making.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (url and strictness). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 action 'Scan any URL' and lists specific threats (malware, phishing, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ip_check and email_check by focusing on URLs.
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?
Usage context is implied by the tool name and description (scanning URLs for security threats). No explicit when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, but the domain is clear and siblings cover different entities (email, IP, phone).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that invalid/uncovered locations return empty components array, and clarifies the authoritative source (NRCS) with no auth and unlimited free usage. 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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the return data details, coverage, and authoritative source. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (implied by context signals), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's purpose, input requirements, output structure (dominant components with horizons), geographic scope, edge-case behavior, and source reliability. No additional information seems necessary for an AI agent to use this tool correctly.
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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (lat and lon) with coverage notes. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 that the tool gets USDA SSURGO soil properties for a US location by lat/lon, and lists the specific properties returned (drainage class, taxonomic class, pH, organic matter %, sand/silt/clay). It also specifies geographic coverage and edge-case behavior, making it highly distinct from any sibling tools.
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 guides usage by specifying US-only coverage via lat/lon and what happens for non-US locations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear given the tool's specialized data type (soil) and the sibling list shows no similar tools.
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 the tool read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds value by specifying the output includes times and top probability bands, plus the data source. 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 two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core function and output format, the second adds use case and attribution. Perfectly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional boolean, output schema present, annotations complete), the description covers all necessary context: data source, aggregation method, output elements, and use cases. No gaps.
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 sole parameter 'refresh' is a boolean with a description explaining it is a no-op flag for cache busting (bypasses 5-minute cache). Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds functional context 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 tool returns the latest OVATION aurora visibility forecast, aggregated into latitude bands, including observation/forecast times and top hemisphere bands. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling space.swpc tools which cover solar indices and wind, not aurora.
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 notes the tool is useful for aurora-tourism agents and high-latitude visibility checks, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling set makes the purpose distinct.
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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating the exact count (597) and the source (TimeAPI.io), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions or missing critical 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 extremely concise—two sentences with no filler. Every word adds value: the purpose, the count, the use case, and the source. It is front-loaded with the most critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present (per context signals), the description is complete. It explains when to use it, what it returns (list of timezone names), and how to filter. No gaps are apparent.
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 describes the 'filter' parameter with a clear description. Schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of filter values ('America', 'Europe', 'Asia') and clarifying that omission returns all zones. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 title 'List All Timezones' and description 'List all 597 IANA timezone names. Use for timezone validation and discovery (TimeAPI.io)' clearly state the verb (list), resource (timezone names), and specific count (597). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like time.worldclock.convert and time.worldclock.current by focusing on listing all available zones.
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 explicitly says 'Use for timezone validation and discovery', which provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. It implies the tool is for retrieving all available timezone names, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives. However, given the simplicity of the tool, the guidance is sufficient.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying return details (language code and confidence score) and batch capability, exceeding 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?
Two concise sentences front-load purpose and return details, with zero waste. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, well-annotated tool with output schema, the description is fully complete: covers purpose, returns, and batch support. No gaps remain.
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?
Schema covers text parameter 100%. Description adds 'Supports batch detection' clarifying array usage, providing additional meaning beyond 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 'detect' and the resource 'language of text', specifies return values (language code and confidence score), and distinguishes it from siblings like translate.text.translate and translate.text.languages.
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 language detection and mentions batch support, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or direct comparisons with alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable details about what the tool returns (crash/fire flags, injuries, deaths, components, summary) and its coverage (US vehicles from ~1995 to present), which goes beyond annotation information.
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 three sentences with no wasted words. The key action and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence. It efficiently conveys purpose, return data, and coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (not shown but mentioned), the description sufficiently explains the return fields and data range. It covers the tool's purpose, input requirements, and output content, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter (make, model, model_year). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 it searches consumer complaints filed with NHTSA, specifying the resource (complaints) and action (search). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recalls and investigations by focusing on complaints.
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?
While the description mentions it is critical for safety research and product liability analysis, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like vehicle.safety.recalls or vehicle.safety.investigations. However, the context of complaints versus recalls or investigations is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns decoded HTML, HTTP status code, and content length; automatically handles anti-bot protection; and mentions pricing ($0.00013 for simple sites). No contradictions exist between description and 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 three sentences, front-loaded with a clear action emoji and purpose. Each sentence earns its place: action/cost, return values/use cases, and anti-bot feature. No redundant or extraneous information. Exceptionally concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema exists but not needed in description), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, use cases, and key features. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool without further clarification. Complete for its complexity level.
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% coverage for the single parameter 'url', which already includes a description mentioning fast and cheap scraping with an example. The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond reinforcing the URL parameter. Per rules, high schema coverage sets baseline at 3.
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 'Extract raw HTML from any URL' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like web.scrape.browser (dynamic scraping) and web.scrape.screenshot (screenshot capture) by focusing on raw HTML extraction. Also notes cheap pricing and automatic anti-bot protection, further differentiating.
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 context for when to use: 'Use for data extraction, content analysis, or price monitoring.' It also highlights the cheap cost and anti-bot handling, implying suitability for simple static sites. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives like diffbot or browser-based tools. Still, the guidance is clear and contextually informative.
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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition of the two modes and the WhoisXML source adds useful behavioral context. No contradictions found.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key differentiators. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, robust annotations, and an output schema), the description sufficiently covers all aspects. It explains the two modes and the data source, leaving no gaps in understanding.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the trade-off between DNS_ONLY and DNS_AND_WHOIS, and provides example domain formats, going beyond the schema's enumerations.
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 checks domain availability with two modes (fast DNS or thorough DNS+WHOIS). It distinguishes itself from siblings like whois.domain.lookup which provide full WHOIS data, by focusing specifically on availability for registration.
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 guidance on when to use each mode: DNS_ONLY for speed, DNS_AND_WHOIS for accuracy. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the mode descriptions give clear context 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 already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world hints. The description adds behavioral context: returns sorted results with connector types, power levels, and availability, and explains filtering purpose. This complements annotations well.
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 sentences that are efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description adequately covers input parameters and output behavior (sorted by distance, including details). It is complete for a search tool with this level of complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, and the description adds value by explaining the default radius, and for connection_type_id provides example mappings (25=Type2, etc.) and notes that min_power_kw is for DC fast charging. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.
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 it finds nearest EV charging stations to GPS coordinates within a radius. It specifies sorting by distance, connector types, power levels, and availability, and mentions filtering by power and connector type. This is specific and distinct from siblings like ev.charging.details and ev.charging.search.
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 explains the default radius and filtering options, and implies the tool is for proximity-based searches. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not guidance, but the context is clear enough for agents to decide when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavioral traits: cost per message (cheapest tier), error condition (400 for non-NANP), and region restriction. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are complemented rather than contradicted, as 'send' implies mutation.
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 compact sentences with emoji bullet convey essential details without filler. Includes price, region restriction, error condition, and recommendation for estimation tool. Every word earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, the description covers main action, region, cost, error, and alternative tool. Slightly less than 5 because it omits details like character encoding or delivery confirmations, but these are reasonable given schema 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. It adds context on pricing and errors but no new parameter info beyond schema; baseline 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 specifies the action (Send SMS), target region (North America NANP +1), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the cheapest tier and a 400 error for non-NANP destinations. Contrasting with phone.telnyx.sms_premium and phone.telnyx.sms_world reinforces scope.
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?
Explicitly advises using telnyx.estimate_price first if unsure, and alerts that the tool returns 400 for destinations outside +1. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with an alternative tool named.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds value by specifying the data source (RapidAPI/Realtor.com) and listing the return fields, which goes beyond the 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 sentences front-load the purpose and usage guidance without any fluff. Every word earns its place, 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.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input (1 required param), existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns and how to obtain the required ID. No critical gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of 'property_id' (e.g., example value). The description additionally explains that the ID comes from a for_sale search, adding meaningful context 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 tool's purpose ('detailed property information by property ID') and lists specific data fields (beds, baths, sqft, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'realestate.listings.for_sale' by requiring a property_id from that search.
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 explicitly instructs to use 'for_sale search first to get property_id', providing clear sequential guidance. It does not mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives, but the instruction is direct and useful for correct invocation.
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, idempotent, open world. Description adds source (TheCocktailDB) and scope (10,000+ recipes), and confirms return fields. No contradictions.
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?
Three concise sentences with no wordiness. Front-loaded with action and key details, making it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple tool with 2 params, 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and output schema implied, description fully covers what the tool does and how to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions; description adds critical usage guidance ('use name OR ingredient, not both') and concrete examples, exceeding schema info.
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?
Clearly states it searches cocktail recipes by name or ingredient with specific return fields, and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'recipes.cocktail.random'.
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?
Explicitly states to use name OR ingredient, not both, and provides examples. Lacks explicit mention of when not to use (e.g., for random recipes) but context is clear.
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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about global station coverage (100K+ stations) and the data source (WeatherAPI.com), which goes beyond the annotations 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 concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and output fields, then specify input types. No redundant information; every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description, combined with the output schema (which exists but is not shown here) and annotations, provides a complete picture. It explains what the tool returns (specific weather parameters) and how to use it (input types). There are no gaps given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'q' parameter with examples. The description adds further semantic clarity by explicitly listing allowed input types (city name, coordinates, zip, airport code) and noting the global station count, enriching understanding 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 tool's purpose: to get current weather conditions for any location worldwide, listing specific data fields (temperature, wind, humidity, etc.) and input types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like forecast or astronomy by emphasizing 'current' conditions.
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 specifies acceptable input formats (city name, coordinates, zip code, airport code) and notes global coverage, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools for non-current data, but the distinction is implicit given the title and sibling 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable details about the returned data (license status, image URLs) and the need to search first, which are not captured by 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, well-structured sentence with an additional imperative sentence for guidance. No redundant information; every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description lists all key return fields and includes usage context (search first), making it fully informative 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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with a description for artwork_id. The description reiterates finding IDs via cma.search and gives an example (135382 for Monet), adding context beyond the schema's basic 'Cleveland Museum artwork ID'.
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 'Get full details for a Cleveland Museum artwork by ID' and lists specific fields returned (title, artist, license status, image URLs). It distinguishes from sibling tool cma.art.search, which is for finding IDs, by explicitly directing the agent to use cma.search first.
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 tells the agent to use cma.search to find artwork IDs first, providing clear guidance on when and how to use this tool versus its sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond annotations by specifying the exact number of languages (71), the return format (full list with compiler/interpreter versions), and the backend system (Judge0 CE). This adds critical behavioral context not captured in readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.
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 well-structured sentences: first states purpose and scope, second adds common IDs and return details. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the most critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully covers the tool's purpose, input, and output for a simple listing tool. Describes the optional filter and what the response contains (full list with versions). No gaps given the simplicity and presence of an output schema.
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?
Input schema defines the filter parameter with a description; the tool description adds examples (e.g., 'python', 'java') and clarifies default behavior (returns all 71 languages if omitted). This enhances usability beyond the schema alone.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'List' and the specific resource 'all 71 available programming languages and their IDs' with a precise count. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dev.code.execute by focusing on language listing rather than execution.
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?
Provides common IDs (e.g., 71=Python 3.8) as usage hints for code execution. Implicitly guides when to use (before dev.code.execute), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Still effectively communicates its role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: it returns specific vehicle attributes and is from NHTSA with no auth limits. 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 sentences: the first lists outputs, the second covers source and constraints. Extremely concise and front-loaded with essential information, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, input, and usage context (government source, unlimited, no auth). No gaps for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
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 schema covers the single 'vin' parameter with length constraints. The description reinforces the 17-character requirement and lists decoded outputs, adding semantic value beyond the schema for the return, but the parameter itself is well-documented.
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 decodes a 17-character VIN and lists the output attributes (make, model, year, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like vehicle.vin.models by specifying the NHTSA source and the decode operation.
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 notes it uses US Government open data, is unlimited, and requires no auth, implying free and authoritative use for any VIN. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like vehicle.autodev.vin_decode, so agents may need to infer when this is the best choice.
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, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the data source (World Bank) and license, but doesn't need to repeat safety info. No contradictions.
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 sentences that are well-structured and front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, parameters (via schema), return data, and output schema implicitly. Annotations are present, and sibling tools are listed. Complete for a search tool.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds context by listing example keywords and return fields, which complements the schema. Baseline 3 plus slight improvement for value-add.
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 searches over 16,000 development indicators by keyword or topic, listing example topics (GDP, population) and return fields. It also distinguishes itself by instructing to use indicator IDs with finance.country_data for time-series, which differentiates it from sibling tools.
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 when to use this tool (to search indicators) and when to use an alternative (finance.country_data for time-series data). It also mentions the data license (CC BY 4.0).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds that output is JSON-stat2 format with labeled dimensions and numeric values, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences and an example. Front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisite, then illustrative example. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of SCB queries, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, example, and output format. Output schema exists (context signal), so return values are documented elsewhere. Complete for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds real-world examples and explains filter types and value codes in detail, providing significant added value beyond the schema definitions.
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 it runs statistical queries against SCB tables with dimension filters. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying that it's for querying data, while siblings like scb.catalog.browse and scb.tables.metadata serve different purposes.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call scb.table_metadata first to discover valid codes, providing a clear prerequisite. Though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the alternative is implied. A strong 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. Description adds valuable context: returns specific fields (hygiene rating, business type, inspection date, address) and geographic coverage (500K+ premises across GB, excluding Scotland).
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, returned data, scope/exception. No redundancy or fluff.
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?
With output schema indicated, description covers key aspects. Missing brief mention of location-based search (lat/lon + radius) and pagination, but overall sufficient.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. Description adds high-level search categories (name, address, postcode, local authority) that complement but do not fully detail all parameters like latitude/longitude or pagination.
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?
Description clearly states 'Search UK food businesses' and specifies search criteria and return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ukfsa.establishments.detail by focusing on search vs. detail retrieval.
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?
Explicitly mentions searching by name, address, postcode, or local authority. Notes Scotland has separate FHIS system, guiding users to an alternative tool there.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as data availability from ~2011 for US-market vehicles (NHTSA) and that it also returns complaint/recall/investigation counts. The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) are consistent.
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: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and parameters, then add data coverage and extra outputs. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 0 required, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers purpose, input options, return data, data coverage, and limitations. The output schema handles return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Even though the input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions, the tool description adds meaningful clarity by summarizing the two usage modes (make/model/year or vehicle_id) and the prerequisite for each, enhancing an agent's understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 retrieves NCAP 5-Star crash test safety ratings by make/model/year or vehicle ID, specifying the exact ratings returned (overall, frontal, side, rollover) and additional data (complaints, recalls, investigations). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vehicle.safety.complaints and vehicle.safety.recalls by focusing on ratings.
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 explains when to use the tool (when needing crash test ratings) and mentions two valid input modes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the sibling context provides natural differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. Description adds rich behavioral context: it returns all carrier scan events with timestamps and locations, delivery milestones, transit days, and origin/destination countries. It also lists support for 3,200+ carriers across 220 countries. No contradictions.
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?
Description consists of two dense sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence packs multiple relevant details, and the second provides an essential prerequisite. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's single parameter, presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotence, the description is fully adequate. It explains what the tool returns and the necessary precondition, leaving no critical gaps for agent understanding.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of the tracking_number parameter. The tool description adds value by elaborating on the output fields (timeline, events, milestones) and the prerequisite of registration, slightly surpassing the baseline 3.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves full tracking timeline, including latest status, carrier scan events, timestamps, locations, and delivery milestones. It distinguishes from sibling 'logistics.tracking.register' by explicitly noting the package must already be registered, and from 'logistics.tracking.list' by providing detailed event-level data.
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?
Description explicitly states when to use (for a registered package needing full tracking details) and when not (if number not registered, call tracking.register first). This provides clear usage boundaries and an alternative action.
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:

[![APIbase MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/whiteknightonhorse/APIbase/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/whiteknightonhorse/APIbase)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![APIbase MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/whiteknightonhorse/APIbase/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/whiteknightonhorse/APIbase)

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/whiteknightonhorse/APIbase'

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