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 mentions authentication requirements, which is helpful, but lacks other critical behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), doesn't mention rate limits, pagination behavior beyond schema hints, or what happens with large date ranges. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that states the core purpose and authentication requirement. There's zero wasted text, and every word earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on when to use it versus siblings, doesn't explain behavioral aspects like pagination or rate limits, and provides no information about return values. For a trade history tool with filtering and pagination, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond schema defaults, or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide extra value.

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: 'Get personal trade history with detailed trade information (side, price, fees, PnL).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('personal trade history'), and scope of information returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_trade_history' or 'get_orders_history,' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 usage guidance: 'Requires authentication' indicates a prerequisite but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given about when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'get_trade_history' or 'get_orders_history,' leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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