REI Crypto MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists stablecoins with circulating amounts and includes an optional price parameter, but doesn't describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or pagination. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 concise with three sentences: the endpoint, core functionality, and parameter explanation. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure is clear, though it could be slightly more polished by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly.

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's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and only one parameter with good description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, potential limitations) that would be important for a tool fetching financial data. It's complete enough for basic use but misses operational details.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'include_prices: whether to include current stablecoin prices (default: True)'. This explains the parameter's purpose and default value, which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title and type). The description fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation for this parameter.

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: 'List all stablecoins along with their circulating amounts.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('stablecoins'), and key output information ('circulating amounts'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_stablecoin_prices' by focusing on comprehensive listing rather than price-specific queries, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all stablecoin-related siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_stablecoin_prices' (which might fetch only prices) or 'get_stablecoin_charts_all' (which might provide chart data), leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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