Dritan MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the data source ('via Dritan') and equivalence to another tool, but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes helpful contextual equivalence. Every part of the sentence adds value.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and some usage context but misses parameter details, behavioral traits, and output information. For a tool with such sparse structured data, the description should do more to compensate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'mint' parameter at all, leaving its purpose, format, or examples undocumented. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the bare schema provides.

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') and resource ('token risk'), specifying it's done 'via Dritan'. It distinguishes from sibling 'token_get_aggregated' and 'token_get_price' by focusing on risk. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'market_get_snapshot' since it mentions equivalence to that tool with 'mode=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?

It provides explicit context by stating this tool is equivalent to 'market_get_snapshot mode=risk', guiding users to use this for token risk instead of the more general market snapshot. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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