Derive MCP Server

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

Zero annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It fails to specify the return format (array of objects vs other structure), rate limits, maximum queryable date ranges, or whether the data is real-time vs delayed. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but specific behavioral constraints are absent.

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 is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is potentially underspecified for the complexity (4 required parameters, no output schema), verging on minimalism rather than rich conciseness.

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 4-parameter data retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description meets minimum viability but has clear gaps. It omits return value structure, pagination behavior, and the relationship to the candles variant, which are necessary for robust agent operation.

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 100%, documenting all four parameters including units (seconds) and currency examples. The description adds no semantic depth beyond the schema, but the high coverage means the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('historical spot price data') with scope ('for a currency'). However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling tool `get_spot_feed_history_candles`, leaving ambiguity about whether this returns raw ticks, aggregated data, or how it differs from the OHLC variant.

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 provided on when to use this versus `get_spot_feed_history_candles` or other history tools like `get_funding_rate_history`. No mention of timestamp range limits, pagination requirements, or prerequisites.

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