buda-mcp

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool returns an empty array (not an error) for currencies without associated banks, and results are cached for 60 seconds. This covers important operational characteristics that aren't evident from the input schema alone.

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 three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core functionality, explaining edge case behavior, and providing a usage example. There's no redundant information, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.

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 read operation with no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool returns, edge case behavior, and caching characteristics. The example question helps illustrate the tool's purpose. The main gap is the lack of information about the structure of the returned banks data, but given the tool's relative simplicity, the description is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the currency parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about how the parameter relates to the tool's behavior (e.g., crypto currencies or unsupported fiat currencies return empty arrays). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('banks available for deposits and withdrawals'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on banking infrastructure rather than market data or trading operations. It explicitly mentions the domain context (Buda.com) and the specific use case for fiat currencies.

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: for queries about banks associated with a specific fiat currency on Buda.com. It includes an example question ('Which banks can I use for CLP deposits?') that illustrates the intended use case. 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.