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. While it mentions authentication requirements, it doesn't describe what 'active RFQs' means operationally, whether there are rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the response takes. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 at just two sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds the authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more complete context for this read operation. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'active' RFQs, what 'quotes received' means, the response format, or any limitations. For a tool that presumably returns business-critical RFQ data, this is insufficient contextual information.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'subaccount_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get active RFQs') and resource ('for a subaccount with quotes received'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling RFQ-related tools like 'send_rfq', leaving room for ambiguity about when to use each.

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 includes 'Requires authentication' which provides some context about prerequisites, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_orders_history' or 'send_rfq'. The usage context is implied rather than clearly articulated.

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