DROYD MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'retrieve'), returns comprehensive data including strategies, swaps, P&L, and wallet info, and explains the impact of the leg_status parameter on response content. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers core behavior well.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a bulleted list of returns, then usage notes and examples. Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity or practical guidance, with no wasted words.

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's complexity (retrieving multi-faceted trading data) and no output schema, the description does a good job listing return components. However, it could be more complete by specifying data formats or any limitations, but it covers key aspects adequately for the agent to understand what to expect.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of leg_status beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'all' includes executed/completed legs and provides examples showing how to use it, enhancing understanding without redundancy.

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 verb 'retrieve' and specifies the resources: 'active trading positions and wallet holdings'. It distinguishes from siblings like droyd_get_watchlist (likely for monitoring) and droyd_manage_trade/droyd_open_trade (for trade operations) by focusing on retrieval of current positions and holdings.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to get active positions and holdings, with guidance on the leg_status parameter to include history. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as whether droyd_get_watchlist serves a different purpose.

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