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 states it's a GET operation, implying read-only, but doesn't specify rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or data freshness. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 very brief with two sentences, but the first sentence is just the endpoint path, which adds little value beyond the tool name. The second sentence states the purpose efficiently. It's front-loaded with the endpoint, but could be more informative by integrating the purpose first.

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 the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, for a data retrieval tool with no annotations, it lacks details on data scope (e.g., time period, LSD types), response structure, or error handling, leaving gaps in context.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could mention if any implicit parameters (like time range) are assumed. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 retrieves APY rates of multiple LSDs (Liquid Staking Derivatives), which is a specific verb ('GET') and resource ('yields/lsdRates'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on LSD yield rates rather than other yield-related tools like get_yield_chart or get_yield_pools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, just implies a specific data type.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools like get_yield_pools or get_yield_chart that might offer related data. Usage is implied only by the endpoint path.

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