yop-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns '概览信息(markdown格式)' (overview information in markdown format), which is useful behavioral context about output format. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance with a specific alternative tool, and the third clarifies the return format. Every sentence adds value with zero waste or redundancy.

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

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

Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, provides usage guidance with a sibling tool, and specifies the return format (markdown). The output schema likely covers return value details, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, without annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like read-only nature or error handling.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to provide beyond what the schema already covers (which is none).

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: '了解易宝支付开放平台(YOP)的平台规范，接入流程，网站地图' (understand YOP platform specifications, access process, site map). It specifies the resource (YOP overview) and what information it provides. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'yeepay_yop_product_overview' which might serve a similar overview function for different scopes.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance: '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 tool yeepay_yop_link_detail to get detailed content). This clearly indicates when to use an alternative tool (yeepay_yop_link_detail) based on specific conditions (presence of links in the returned content).

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