buda-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains key traits: it's a client-side calculation (no API call), specifies the risk logic ('costs exactly risk_pct% of capital'), and includes an example. It could add more on error handling or output format 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by behavioral details and a practical example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (financial calculation with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's function, behavior, and includes an example. A minor gap is the lack of explicit output format, but the example implies a numeric result, making it adequate for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by summarizing parameters in context ('capital, risk tolerance, entry price, and stop-loss') and illustrating them in the example, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('calculates position size', 'determines how many units to buy or sell') and resources (capital, risk tolerance, entry price, stop-loss). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on position sizing rather than market data, arbitrage, or order simulation.

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 for when to use this tool ('based on your capital, risk tolerance, entry price, and stop-loss') and includes an example scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, though the purpose inherently differentiates it.

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