Content
67%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a well-structured, highly actionable MCP tool reference with concrete invocations and parameter tables for every tool. Its main weaknesses are redundancy between the Usage Patterns/Tips sections and the Core Tools examples, and minor documentation gaps for people_search_exa and the deep_researcher tools.
Suggestions
Cut or consolidate the 'Usage Patterns' section: three of its four patterns duplicate invocations already shown in Core Tools. Keep only the genuinely compositional patterns (Company Due Diligence, Technical Deep Dive) and fold the rest into the tool entries.
Add parameter tables for 'people_search_exa' and for 'deep_researcher_start'/'deep_researcher_check' (e.g. what 'researchId' is, when to poll, how results are returned) so every tool is documented to the same standard.
Merge the 'Tips' routing guidance into a single tool-selection decision list (broad query → web_search_exa; domain/date constraints → web_search_advanced_exa; code → get_code_context_exa; comprehensive topic → deep_researcher_start) so the workflow is stated once instead of across two sections.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The per-tool reference tables are lean, but the 'Usage Patterns' section largely re-runs invocations already shown in Core Tools (e.g. 'company_research_exa(companyName: "Vercel", numResults: 5)' duplicates the earlier Anthropic example, and Quick Lookup / Code Research repeat prior calls verbatim), and 'Tips' restates guidance from tool sections. This matches anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but... could be tightened') rather than 2, since there is no concept-explanation padding. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Every tool has a concrete invocation with realistic arguments (e.g. 'get_code_context_exa(query: "Python asyncio patterns", tokensNum: 3000)') and most have parameter tables with defaults. Minor gaps keep it at anchor 4: 'people_search_exa' lacks a parameter table and the deep_researcher tools document no parameters beyond the '<id from start>' placeholder. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The one multi-step process is clearly sequenced ('# Start research' / '# ... do other work ...' / '# Check status (returns results when complete)'), and tool-selection guidance appears in descriptions and Tips. All operations are read-only, so no validation checkpoints are required. Not 5 because routing between overlapping tools (web_search_exa vs web_search_advanced_exa) is split across multiple sections instead of a single decision flow. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single well-organized file with clear sections (activation, MCP setup, per-tool reference, patterns, tips) and no dead or nested references — matching anchor 4 ('good structure... minor organization gaps'). Not 5 because at ~169 lines the inline API reference for seven tools is borderline bulk that could be split into a separate reference file, and there is no overview-to-detail layering. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |