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 mentions that the output includes '对接最佳实践等' (integration best practices, etc.) and is in markdown format, which adds useful context about the return value. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (since none exist), but it's incomplete for behavioral transparency.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: one stating the purpose and usage guideline, and another specifying the return format. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more efficient by combining ideas, but it's still highly effective.

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, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns:' in the description), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, provides a usage guideline with an alternative tool, and specifies the return format (markdown with best practices). For a simple informational tool, this covers the essentials, though it lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety or performance.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate. No additional parameter information is required or provided.

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)提供的各种SDK和工具的使用说明' (get usage instructions for various SDKs and tools from YeePay YOP platform). It specifies the resource (SDKs and tools) and the action (get usage instructions), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'yeepay_yop_overview' or 'yeepay_yop_product_overview' which might provide different types of overviews.

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 clear context for usage: '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 the tool yeepay_yop_link_detail to get more details). This gives a specific alternative tool for follow-up actions, though it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus other siblings like 'yeepay_yop_java_sdk_user_guide' which might be more specific.

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