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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirements, which is useful, but lacks details on rate limits, response format, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any other behavioral traits. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 with two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key requirement. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main action.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers authentication but misses critical details like what the output looks like (e.g., list of accounts, thresholds), whether it's a read operation, or any error conditions. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves significant gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('wallet'), so the schema already documents it well. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('margin watch information'), and specifies what the information shows ('accounts approaching liquidation'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_liquidation_history' or 'get_liquidation_price', but the focus on 'approaching liquidation' provides some distinction.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Requires authentication,' which suggests when to use it (when authenticated) but doesn't explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_liquidation_history' or 'get_margin'. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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