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 does well by describing the return format (typed objects with float fields), sorting behavior (bids highest-price first, asks lowest-price first), and currency conventions (prices in quote currency, amounts in base currency). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context.

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: the core functionality, behavioral details about sorting and currencies, and a usage example. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 data retrieval tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides strong context about the return format, sorting, and currency conventions. The example question helps illustrate usage. It doesn't describe the exact structure of returned objects or pagination behavior, but gives enough information for effective use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing additional value.

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 the current order book'), resource ('for a Buda.com market'), and output format ('as typed objects with float price and amount fields'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_ticker or get_trades by specifying it provides order book data with bid/ask structure.

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 through the example question ('What are the top 5 buy and sell orders for BTC-CLP right now?'), which implies it's for retrieving order book depth. 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.