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 'real-time' data, which hints at dynamic updates, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or response format. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 ('Get real-time orderbook data') and includes key details without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (fetching real-time market data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies what data is retrieved but lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational constraints, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.

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 both parameters (instrument_name and depth) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or format details, meeting the baseline for 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 specific action ('Get real-time orderbook data'), the resource ('for a specific instrument'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the data content ('bid/ask levels, depth, and spread'), which is unique among tools like get_ticker or get_tickers that provide different market data.

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 implies usage for retrieving orderbook data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ticker (for price only) or get_instruments (for instrument details). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context inferred rather than defined.

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