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. It mentions authentication but lacks details on rate limits, response format, whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, or potential side effects (e.g., does sending an RFQ commit to a trade?). This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves financial transactions.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds necessary authentication info. Both sentences earn their place, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating prerequisites).

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 complexity of financial operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, response expectations, or error handling. For a tool that interacts with market makers, more context on what happens after sending the RFQ is needed.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'amount' units or 'instrument_name' format). This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Send a Request For Quote to get custom pricing from market makers.' It specifies the verb ('Send'), resource ('Request For Quote'), and outcome ('get custom pricing'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_quote' or 'get_rfqs', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 minimal guidance: 'Requires authentication' is a basic prerequisite but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'place_order' or 'execute_quote'. No context on when-not-to-use or specific scenarios is given, leaving the agent with little practical direction.

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