kite-mcp

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

The description adds the important behavioral qualifier 'active' (filtering to currently live triggers), which extends beyond the annotations. However, with annotations already declaring the read-only/destructive profile, the description misses opportunities to explain GTT lifecycle behavior (e.g., whether triggered orders disappear from this list) or pagination/limits for 'all' results.

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 single sentence is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place: 'active' specifies scope, and the parenthetical acronym expansion aids clarity without verbosity.

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 zero parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema exists (handling return value documentation), the description is essentially complete for a simple list retrieval. It could slightly improve by noting if 'all' implies pagination or account-wide scope.

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 contains zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter documentation where none exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('GTT triggers' with helpful acronym expansion) and scope ('all active'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'place_gtt' (which creates triggers) or 'get_orders' (which retrieves regular orders), which would warrant a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention relationships to 'place_gtt' (for creating triggers) or suggest use cases like monitoring existing triggers before placing new ones.

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