BSC MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'buy meme token' implies a financial transaction but fails to disclose critical traits such as authentication needs, potential costs (e.g., gas fees), rate limits, or what happens upon execution (e.g., token transfer confirmation). This is inadequate for a tool likely involving monetary risk.

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 extremely concise with just three words, which could be seen as efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized, as it lacks necessary details for a tool with financial implications. It is front-loaded but fails to provide essential context, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description.

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 a financial transaction tool with no annotations, 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent unable to use it safely or effectively in context with siblings like 'sellMemeToken'.

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 0%, meaning parameters 'bnbValue', 'token', and 'tokenValue' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, such as their roles (e.g., 'token' as the token to buy, 'bnbValue' as BNB amount), formats, or interactions. This leaves the agent guessing about required inputs.

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 'buy meme token' restates the tool name 'buyMemeToken' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'buy' and resource 'meme token', but lacks detail on what this entails (e.g., on which platform, for what purpose) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sellMemeToken' or 'pancakeSwap', which are related to token transactions.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., wallet setup, token availability), context for use (e.g., trading scenarios), or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage compared to siblings like 'sellMemeToken' or 'pancakeSwap'.

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