Price Service MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level ('Get cryptocurrency price data') without describing response format, error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a real-time or cached service. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 complexity (6 parameters including historical data options) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what price data is returned (single price? OHLC? volume?), how historical timestamps work with different resolutions, or what the response structure looks like. For a price data tool with multiple configuration options, more context 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 already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, defaults, and required status. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 as 'Get cryptocurrency price data from the price service' - a specific verb ('Get') with resource ('cryptocurrency price data') and source ('price service'). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools, but the only sibling is 'health_check' which serves a completely different purpose, so differentiation isn't needed here.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there's only one sibling tool ('health_check') with an unrelated purpose, the description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for price data retrieval.

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