REI Crypto MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool is a GET operation, implying it is read-only, but does not confirm this or address other aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. The description lacks details on what the breakdown includes (e.g., token types, address categories) or any constraints, making it insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are concise and directly relevant. However, the inclusion of 'GET /bridgedaystats/{timestamp}/{chain}' is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be omitted for better flow, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (as per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete: it covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like rate limits or error cases. It is adequate but has clear gaps in guiding the agent on usage and transparency.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'timestamp' is a 'Unix timestamp for the 24hr period starting at 00:00 UTC', 'chain' is a 'chain slug (e.g., 'Ethereum')', and 'id' is a 'bridge ID (optional, can be retrieved from /bridges)'. This clarifies the purpose and format of parameters beyond the basic schema, but it does not provide examples for 'chain' beyond one slug or detail how 'timestamp' aligns with UTC, leaving some gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a 24hr token and address volume breakdown for a bridge.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('24hr token and address volume breakdown'), and scope ('for a bridge'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bridge_volume' or 'get_bridge_transactions', which might offer related data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions that the 'id' parameter is optional and can be retrieved from '/bridges', which hints at a prerequisite, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_bridge_volume' or 'get_bridge_transactions'. There is no explicit context on when or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.