Derive MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns detailed information, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return value without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by adding relevant information.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and return content but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output structure, which are needed for full contextual understanding.

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 documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying filtering by currency and type, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies, such as examples or constraints not in the enum.

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 with specific verbs ('Get all active instruments') and resources ('instruments for a specified currency and type'), and mentions the return content ('detailed information about tradeable assets including fees, constraints, and Greeks'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_currencies' or 'get_tickers', which reduces the score from 5 to 4.

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 does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'get_currencies' or 'get_tickers', leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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