The exchange itself: the site, terms, support, and the independent monitors and review sites listing it (its rating and reviews are there).
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": "about_exchange"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closedWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some value by naming the content included (terms, support, monitors, ratings/reviews), which hints at what an agent will get back. It does not say whether this is static reference data versus live-fetched, nor anything about the response shape, which matters because there is no output schema.
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?
It is short, but the phrasing is a sentence fragment ('The exchange itself: ...') with ambiguous referents like 'its rating and reviews are there.' It is front-loaded with the resource but not with any actionable statement of return behavior.
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?
For a no-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description should be the primary source of what the agent gets back. It lists content categories but not form, depth, or whether links/structured records are returned, leaving meaningful guesswork.
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. Nothing in the description contradicts or complicates the empty schema.
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 fragment identifies the resource (the exchange) and enumerates the content areas it covers: site, terms, support, monitors, and review sites with ratings. There is no explicit verb or statement of what the tool returns, so the purpose is inferable rather than stated. It does partly distinguish itself from siblings (quote, reserves, pay methods, receive options) by covering reputation and terms.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess that this is the 'background/reputation' lookup and the others are transactional lookups.
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.