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 does well by explaining the liquidity_rating calculation logic with specific spread thresholds, and clarifies that all prices and volumes are floats. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements.

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. It starts with the core purpose, lists the data points, explains the liquidity_rating logic, provides data type information, gives usage guidance, and ends with a concrete example - all in three well-organized sentences.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining what data will be returned and how some values are calculated. The main gap is the lack of information about the return structure/format, which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 market_id parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage situations.

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 ('One-call summary of everything relevant about a market') and lists the exact data points returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it's a comprehensive overview tool rather than specialized tools like get_spread or get_ticker.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Best first tool to call when a user asks about any specific market' and gives a concrete example query. It implicitly suggests alternatives by listing what data it includes, helping differentiate from more specialized sibling tools.

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