Derive MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool provides 'detailed trade information' and 'supports filtering and pagination.' However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or whether this includes only settled trades versus all trade attempts.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential additional information about filtering and pagination. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted space.

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 read-only tool with 10 well-documented parameters but no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It doesn't describe the return format (array of trades? structured object?), pagination behavior (total count? next page token?), or clarify what 'tick-by-tick' means operationally. With no annotations and no output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'filtering' (implied by parameters) and 'pagination' (implied by page/page_size parameters) but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 ('tick-by-tick trade history') with specific details about what information is included (price, size, buyer/seller, timestamp). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_my_trades' (personal trades) by describing a comprehensive historical dataset.

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 detailed historical trade data with filtering capabilities, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_my_trades' (personal trades) or 'get_orders_history' (order history). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite information is provided.

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