Dritan MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching data (implying read-only) but doesn't address rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'aggregated' specifically entails. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 one sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and equivalence. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'aggregated token data' includes, what format it returns, or provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and limitations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single 'mint' parameter, the description provides no information about what this parameter represents, its format, or valid values. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning ambiguous.

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 ('Fetch aggregated token data') and the resource ('via Dritan'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from some siblings by specifying 'aggregated' data, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'token_get_price' or 'token_get_risk'.

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 clear context by stating this is equivalent to 'market_get_snapshot mode=aggregated', giving an explicit alternative. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus other token-related tools like 'token_get_price' or 'token_get_risk', nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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