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 excels. It discloses critical behavioral traits: client-side aggregation from raw trades (not native), performance trade-offs (more trades = deeper history but slower), response format (OHLCV floats with currency details), timestamp behavior (UTC bucket boundaries), and period options. This goes well beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with an IMPORTANT note about client-side aggregation. Every sentence adds value: performance trade-off, return format, period options, timestamp details, and an example. Minor redundancy exists in repeating 'limit' parameter info, but overall efficient.

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 (aggregation from trades, multiple parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, performance considerations, and even includes an example query. This provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it explains the 'limit' parameter's impact on history depth vs. speed, clarifies that periods are for candles (not just a string enum), and provides an example with 'market_id' and 'period'. However, it doesn't add syntax details beyond the schema for 'market_id'.

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: 'Returns OHLCV candles (open/high/low/close as floats in quote currency; volume as float in base currency) for periods 5m, 15m, 30m, 1h, 4h, or 1d.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('OHLCV candles'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_trades (raw trades) or get_ticker (current price).

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 price history/candlestick data, with an example query. It mentions the trade-off between depth and speed via the 'limit' parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., get_trades for raw data).

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