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. While it mentions the implementation method ('via Dritan') and equivalence to another tool, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the price data will be returned in. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 relationship to a sibling tool. Every word earns its place - 'Fetch token price' states the purpose, 'via Dritan' adds implementation context, and the parenthetical clarifies the relationship to another tool. There's zero wasted verbiage.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for its single required parameter, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to confidently understand what the tool does, how to use it properly, what the parameter means, or what to expect in return. For a price-fetching tool in a financial context, more contextual information would be expected.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the single 'mint' parameter is completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'mint' represents, its expected format, valid values, or examples. For a tool with one required parameter and zero schema documentation, the description fails to compensate for this significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose as 'Fetch token price via Dritan' which specifies the verb (fetch), resource (token price), and implementation method (via Dritan). It distinguishes from the sibling 'market_get_snapshot' by noting it's equivalent to that tool's 'mode=price' setting, though it doesn't fully differentiate from other token-related tools like 'token_get_aggregated' 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 implied usage guidance by stating this tool is 'same as market_get_snapshot mode=price', suggesting it's an alternative to that sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus other token-related tools like 'token_get_aggregated' or 'token_get_risk', nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites for usage.

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