compare_with_savings_accountCompare low-risk, instant-access crypto savings instruments against a typical bank savings account rate. Returns the honest trade-offs, not just the bigger number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bank_rate_pct | No | Your bank's rate in percent (default 2.0) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bankRatePct | Yes | ||
| instruments | Yes | ||
| honestTradeoffs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / eu_onlyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional: restrict to EU-available instruments. Default false — everything is shown, each row carries an euAvailable flag instead.",
- "type": "boolean"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one behavioral note — that it returns balanced trade-offs rather than the maximum yield — which is useful framing but thin for a tool whose whole value is the quality of its comparison output.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the comparison scope. The second sentence ('honest trade-offs, not just the bigger number') is slightly promotional but does convey behavioral framing rather than being pure 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single parameter is documented. What is missing is which instruments fall under 'low-risk, instant-access' and what dimensions the trade-off covers, which would help an agent set expectations.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter bank_rate_pct is fully documented, including its default of 2.0. The description only alludes to the bank rate conceptually and adds no format, range, or unit detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (compare) and a narrowly scoped pair of resources: low-risk, instant-access crypto savings instruments vs a bank savings account rate. That resource scoping implicitly separates it from broader siblings like compare_assets or search_yield_products, though it never names an alternative to make the distinction explicit.
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 use case (evaluating a bank savings rate against crypto savings options) is implied by the phrasing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as compare_assets. An agent can infer intent but gets no routing guidance.
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.