Derive MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Get' implies read-only but doesn't confirm safety, caching behavior, rate limits, or what happens if instrument_name is invalid. Lacks disclosure on returned data structure since no output schema exists.

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?

Single sentence, 9 words, front-loaded with verb. Efficient and direct. However, given lack of annotations and output schema, the brevity leaves informational gaps rather than demonstrating optimal information density.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter lookup tool, but fails to compensate for missing output schema. Doesn't describe what 'details' include (metadata, specs, pricing), nor does it hint at behavior for non-existent instruments. Acceptable minimum but not robust.

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 coverage is 100% with clear examples (ETH-PERP, BTC-20260328-50000-C) in the parameter description. Main description adds 'by name' which aligns with parameter intent but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond schema. Baseline 3 appropriate given schema completeness.

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?

States clear verb (Get) + resource (instrument details) + scope (specific by name). Distinguishes from bulk operations like get_all_instruments via 'specific...by name' phrasing, though it doesn't clarify distinction from get_ticker which also retrieves instrument data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus siblings like get_all_instruments or get_ticker. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether instrument must exist) or error scenarios.

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