Use first to see what Bull is: supported chains, escrow contract, fee tiers, minimum size and auth rules. Public. Bull is a non-custodial atomic OTC/RFQ settlement layer.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "bull_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does disclose that the call is public/no-auth and that the protocol is non-custodial, which are the two behavioral facts that matter here. It does not say whether values (fee tiers, minimum size) are static config or live state, nor anything about rate limits or caching. For a read-only info tool the risk is low, so 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with the directive 'Use first' front-loaded and the payload list immediately after. The trailing sentence describing Bull as a non-custodial atomic OTC/RFQ layer is the weakest element, but it supplies necessary domain framing rather than filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the five content areas. Combined with the public/non-custodial framing, an agent has enough to call it and act on the result. The only gap is the exact shape/format of the returned data, which is a minor omission for a metadata endpoint.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The enumerated return topics effectively serve as a substitute for parameter meaning by telling the agent what dimensions the response will cover.
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 names a concrete retrieval and enumerates the payload contents (supported chains, escrow contract, fee tiers, minimum size, auth rules), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It also states the domain ('non-custodial atomic OTC/RFQ settlement layer'), which frames the whole tool family. It falls short of 5 only because 'see what Bull is' is a soft verb for what is really a protocol-metadata fetch.
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?
'Use first' is an explicit ordering instruction that tells the agent to call this before any of the bull_* workflow tools, which is exactly the guidance a 0-parameter entry point needs. 'Public' further signals no credential setup is required before other calls. It does not name any sibling or exclusion, but no exclusion is plausible for an info endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.