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 effectively describes key behaviors: it computes indicators without external data, requires sufficient trades for reliability, returns signal interpretations, and provides a structured warning if insufficient data is available. It does not cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but offers 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 well-structured and front-loaded with core functionality, followed by usage notes and an example. Most sentences add value, though the example could be slightly trimmed. It efficiently conveys necessary information without redundancy, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering key aspects: purpose, usage, behaviors, and output expectations. It explains what is returned (indicator values and interpretations) and failure conditions. However, it lacks details on output format or error types, leaving some gaps for an agent to invoke it fully correctly.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the purpose of 'limit' for reliability and suggesting default values, but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 computes specific technical indicators (RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, SMAs) from Buda trade history, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_price_history or get_trades. It specifies the exact indicators calculated and the data source, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 usage, recommending shorter periods for intraday analysis and specifying the need for at least 500 trades for reliable results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_sentiment or compare_markets, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond data availability.

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