CCXT MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set leverage' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing positions when leverage changes, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a financial trading tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 maximally concise with a single, clear sentence that states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point.

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?

For a financial trading tool that modifies leverage (a potentially risky operation), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only states the basic purpose, critical context is missing: what permissions are needed, what happens to existing positions, error handling, rate limits, and response format. The schema handles parameters well, but behavioral and operational context is inadequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation entirely through the schema.

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 ('Set leverage') and resource ('for futures trading'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'set-margin-mode' or 'set-market-type' that also configure trading parameters, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to sibling tools like 'set-margin-mode' or 'place-futures-market-order' that might be related. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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