Compare 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=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a qualitative behavioral note about output nature ('honest trade-offs'), which is useful context but not a deep disclosure of rate limits, data freshness, or computation scope. It doesn't contradict annotations but also doesn't add much beyond them.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison and followed by a concise qualifier. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?
The tool has an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. However, with only one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is somewhat sparse on contextual guidance, such as what 'low-risk, instant-access' entails or how the comparison is computed. It is adequate but leaves gaps in routing and 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%: the single parameter bank_rate_pct is fully described in the schema, including default. The description does not add semantic meaning about how this parameter is used (e.g., whether it's annual percentage yield, compounding, etc.). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a clear comparison task: contrasting low-risk instant-access crypto savings instruments with a typical bank savings account. It is specific about the resource set but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compare_assets or compare_tokenized_access, so the agent might still wonder which comparison tool to pick.
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 some implied guidance ('honest trade-offs, not just the bigger number') which hints at the philosophical stance, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, nor are any alternatives named. The description does not tell the agent under what circumstances this tool is preferable to compare_assets or search_yield_products.
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.