:GT Protocol MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses execution at 'market price' and compatibility with both contract types. Omits destructive/irreversible nature of closing trades and settlement behavior.

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?

Two succinct sentences with zero waste. First states core action and execution method, second clarifies supported trading modes. Information density is high.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter mutation tool, covering action, execution method, and scope. However, lacks important trading context like irreversibility warnings, return value description, or prerequisite checks given no output schema or annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, setting baseline at 3. Description contextualizes bot_id by referencing 'on a bot' but does not add additional parameter constraints or format details.

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?

Clear verb 'Close' with specific resource 'active deal on a bot'. Adds execution method 'at market price' and scope 'SPOT and FUTURES'. Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like stop_bot.

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?

Implies usage scope by specifying 'active' deals and supported contract types (SPOT/FUTURES). Lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives for inactive deals.

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