Armor Crypto 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool performs a 'conversion quote' and is 'good for quickly calculating market prices,' which implies it's a read-only, non-destructive operation for price estimation. However, it doesn't disclose critical details like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or the freshness of the data, which are important for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 concise with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, the second adds usage context, and the third covers input/output types. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys key information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters).

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 complexity (a conversion tool with 1 parameter but nested objects), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and basic I/O types, but lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and how it differs from siblings. The output schema helps, but the description doesn't fully bridge the gaps for safe and effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal value: it mentions 'Expects a ConversionRequestContainer, returns a list of ConversionResponse,' which names the input and output types but doesn't explain what these contain (e.g., that ConversionRequest includes input_amount, input_token, output_token). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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: 'Perform token conversion quote between two tokens.' This specifies the verb ('perform conversion quote') and resource ('tokens'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'swap_quote' or 'stake_quote', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 some implied usage context by stating it's 'Good for quickly calculating market prices,' which suggests when to use it (for quick quotes). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'swap_quote' or 'stake_quote', and doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity.

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