CryptoQuant MCP Server

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 effectively describes what the tool does (clears session and optionally credentials/cache), mentions the need to call 'initialize' afterward, and implies destructive behavior through 'clear' actions. However, it doesn't specify error conditions or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 well-structured and concise, with every sentence earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose, lists use cases efficiently, and provides clear follow-up instructions without unnecessary details, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (session management with destructive potential), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and workflow. It explains the need to call 'initialize' afterward, which is crucial context. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential side effects or error scenarios.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('clear_stored' and 'clear_cache') adequately. The description adds minimal parameter semantics by mentioning 'clear_stored' in use cases but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific verbs ('Clear session and optionally stored credentials') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'initialize' by explaining the workflow relationship. It goes beyond a tautology by detailing what gets cleared and when to use it.

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 explicit usage guidelines with three distinct use cases (switch accounts, API key expired, refresh session), specifies when to set 'clear_stored' to true or false, and directs users to call 'initialize' afterward. It clearly differentiates this tool from alternatives by outlining its role in session management workflows.

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