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 data formats ('All prices are floats in the quote currency', 'spread_percentage is a float in percent'), practical application context, and the tool's focus on pre-trade liquidity assessment. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral 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?

Perfectly structured with zero waste: first sentence states purpose, second provides critical format details, third gives usage guidance with concrete example. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool returns, data formats, and practical application. It could mention response structure or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and clear annotations absence, it's highly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only one parameter (market_id) fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with additional param details.

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 ('Returns') and resources ('best bid, best ask, absolute spread, and spread percentage for a Buda.com market'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_ticker or get_orderbook by focusing specifically on spread metrics for liquidity evaluation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to evaluate liquidity before placing a large order') and provides a concrete example ('Is BTC-CLP liquid enough to buy 10M CLP without significant slippage?'), clearly differentiating it from other market analysis tools.

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