buda-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying what data is returned (base/quote currencies, taker/maker fees as decimals, minimum order size, fee discount tiers) and the behavior when market_id is omitted. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context for a read operation.

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 in two sentences: first stating the core functionality with specific data points, then providing usage guidance with an example. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, 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 tool with no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what data is returned and how to use the parameter. It could be more complete by specifying the exact format of the returned data (e.g., array vs object structure) or mentioning any limitations, but it's substantially complete for its complexity level.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of omitting the parameter ('Omit market_id to get all ~26 markets at once') and providing an example of what market_id represents ('BTC-CLP'). This goes beyond the schema's technical description.

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: 'Lists all available trading pairs on Buda.com, or returns details for a specific market' with specific details like base/quote currencies, fees, minimum order size, and fee discount tiers. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on market metadata rather than pricing, order books, or trading operations.

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 usage context: 'Omit market_id to get all ~26 markets at once' and includes an example query. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_summary or get_ticker, which might provide overlapping or different market information.

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