buda-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: returns data for all trading pairs of the base currency, specifies the supported quote currencies (CLP, COP, PEN, BTC, USDC, ETH), clarifies data types (prices as floats, changes as percent floats), and provides a concrete use case example. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and scope, the second provides crucial data format details, and the third offers a concrete usage example - each sentence earns its place and contributes essential information.

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 single-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It explains what data is returned, the supported currencies, data formats, and includes a practical example. The main gap is the lack of output structure details, but given the tool's relative simplicity, the description is quite comprehensive.

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 fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Returns side-by-side ticker data'), resource ('all trading pairs of a given base currency'), and scope ('across Buda.com's supported quote currencies'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_ticker (single market) or get_markets (list of markets) by emphasizing cross-market comparison.

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 ('In which country is Bitcoin currently most expensive on Buda?'), indicating it's for comparing prices across different quote currencies. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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