getCapabilities

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns capabilities, patterns, rules, and sequences, and clarifies it is about the server not crypto data. It lacks explicit mention of being read-only or non-destructive, but the nature of a capabilities endpoint implies safety, so it is mostly transparent.

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?

Concise: three sentences, each essential. First sentence states function, second gives usage cues, third clarifies scope. No fluff or repetition, front-loaded with purpose.

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 output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview of what is returned (capabilities, patterns, rules, sequences). It also explains when to use and what it does not cover (crypto data). For a simple capabilities tool, this is nearly complete; could benefit from specifying that output is structured (e.g., JSON), but not critical.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is valuable beyond the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is nothing to add about parameters.

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 retrieves server capabilities, workflow patterns, validation rules, and tool sequences. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it describes the MCP server itself, not crypto data, which differentiates it from the data-focused siblings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use FIRST to onboard as an agent', and specifies exact queries like 'what can this server do', 'how should I chain these tools', 'what are the parameter rules'. This leaves no ambiguity about its appropriate context.

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