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 and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: it fetches all relevant tickers, converts prices using current rates, computes pairwise discrepancies, filters by threshold, sorts results, and critically warns about the 0.8% taker fee per leg (~1.6% round-trip) that must be deducted. It doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, or error handling, but covers the essential operational logic.

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 sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and scope. Subsequent sentences explain the process, filtering, and sorting. The critical fee warning is prominently included, and a practical example concludes the description. Every sentence adds essential information for correct tool invocation.

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 (arbitrage detection across multiple markets with fee calculations) and no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the algorithm, key constraints (fees), and provides an example. However, it doesn't specify the output format (e.g., list structure, fields returned) or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that 'threshold_pct' results are returned sorted by opportunity size, clarifies the relationship between threshold and Buda's fees ('requires > 1.6% to be profitable'), and provides an example using 'base_currency' ('BTC'). This enhances understanding of how parameters affect the tool's behavior.

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 ('detects cross-country price discrepancies'), the resource ('given asset across Buda's CLP, COP, and PEN markets'), and the normalization method ('normalized to USDC'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'compare_markets' or 'get_spread' by focusing on arbitrage detection across specific markets with fee-aware calculations.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool: for detecting arbitrage opportunities across Buda's CLP, COP, and PEN markets. The description includes a practical example ('Is there an arbitrage opportunity for BTC between Chile and Peru right now?') and warns about the 0.8% taker fee per leg, indicating this should be used before executing trades. It implicitly distinguishes from simpler comparison tools by emphasizing fee-adjusted profitability.

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