Derive MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating 'Requires authentication', which is crucial context not in the schema. However, it doesn't describe what 'account details' actually returns (format, structure), whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key details, while the second adds authentication requirement. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from returned details).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what 'account details' returns and behavioral aspects. It covers authentication requirement and lists example details, but doesn't provide return format, error handling, or usage context. For a tool with 1 parameter but complex return data implied by the details listed, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'wallet' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'account details', with specific examples of what details are included (subaccounts, rate limits, fee structure, account status). It distinguishes from siblings like get_balance or get_subaccounts by specifying a broader account overview rather than specific components. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 like get_balance, get_subaccounts, or get_margin. It mentions 'Requires authentication' which is a prerequisite, but doesn't indicate when this tool is appropriate versus other account-related tools. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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