yop-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool can be called recursively for links within content, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what '详细内容' (detailed content) entails beyond the return type string. This is inadequate for a tool with no 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.

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

The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and recursive usage, and another in an Args/Returns format. It's front-loaded with the main function, though the formatting could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, but slight redundancy in the Returns statement.

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

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

Given 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (true), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics, and the output schema handles return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and recursive behavior, more details on operational constraints (e.g., depth limits, URL validation) would improve completeness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the 'url' parameter is for '易宝支付开放平台(YOP)的子页面的URL地址' (YOP subpage URL address), providing meaning beyond the schema's generic string type. However, with 1 parameter and no schema descriptions, this is minimal compensation, aligning with the baseline for low coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取易宝支付开放平台(YOP)的各个子页面或者外部链接的详细内容' (get detailed content of YOP subpages or external links). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '详细内容' (detailed content), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'yeepay_yop_overview' which might also retrieve content.

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

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

The description implies usage context: '内容中包含链接时可以调用工具yeepay_yop_link_detail进一步获取其详细内容' (when content contains links, you can call this tool to further get their detailed content). This suggests it's for recursive content retrieval, but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like 'yeepay_yop_api_detail' or clear exclusions.

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