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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirement, which is useful, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what the tool returns (e.g., price format, units). For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding behavior.

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 concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key requirement. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by integrating usage context.

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 is incomplete. It covers authentication but omits critical details like return value format, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool that retrieves financial data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'instrument_name' relates to open positions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the resource 'current liquidation price for an open position', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_positions' or 'get_margin', which might also relate to position data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 guidance with 'Requires authentication', which is a basic prerequisite but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_positions' or 'get_margin' for related position information. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are included.

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