Derive MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'historical' data, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by page/page_size parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with missing parameters. The description is too brief to adequately cover behavioral aspects.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it could potentially be more structured if it included usage notes. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's function.

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?

For a data retrieval tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It identifies the data type but lacks context about return format, error conditions, or relationship to other tools. The high schema coverage helps, but without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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%, providing good documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but the schema itself is comprehensive with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'historical option settlement data', with specific data elements listed (expiry, settlement prices, PnL). It distinguishes from many siblings that deal with different financial data types (e.g., trades, orders, balances), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar historical data tools like get_trade_history or get_funding_history.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and data type alone.

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