MCP-ODOS

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 but offers minimal information. It states the tool 'gets a quote' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if it's idempotent, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description adds little beyond the basic action.

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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward 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?

For a financial quoting tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the quote contains (prices, slippage, fees, etc.), doesn't mention the sibling ODOS_SWAP tool for execution, and provides no behavioral context despite having no annotations. The description leaves too many questions unanswered for proper agent usage.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that fromToken and toToken must be different, or that amount is in wei for the fromToken). With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter semantics in the description.

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 action ('Get a quote') and the resource/operation ('for a swap or exchange operation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling ODOS_SWAP, which appears to be the actual execution tool, so it misses the highest score for sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention ODOS_SWAP (the likely execution sibling) or clarify that this is for quote estimation before committing to a swap. There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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