Rekko MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It successfully clarifies the nature of the 'guidance' (spread/slippage estimates), distinguishing it from actual order placement. However, it lacks operational transparency: it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, if it incurs API costs, or whether the guidance is real-time versus cached.

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 efficiently structured with a clear first sentence summarizing purpose, followed by an Args section documenting parameters. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition of the tool name or tautological statements. The Args section is necessary given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 has an output schema (not shown but indicated in context signals), the description appropriately focuses on input parameters and high-level purpose rather than return value structure. It adequately covers the two parameters. A minor gap remains: it does not clarify operational characteristics (rate limits, real-time vs. cached data) that would help an agent decide when to invoke it.

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 has 0% description coverage, leaving both parameters undocumented. The description fully compensates by documenting both: platform specifies valid enum values ('kalshi' or 'polymarket') and market_id clarifies it is 'Platform-specific.' This completely addresses the schema deficiency.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('execution guidance'), then clarifies the scope with concrete outputs ('spread analysis, slippage estimate, order recommendation'). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like analyze_market or get_market by focusing specifically on trade execution parameters rather than general market data or analysis.

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 like analyze_market or get_arbitrage. It does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., whether market analysis should be run first) or when not to use it (e.g., for illiquid markets).

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