buda-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses useful behavioral context: that prices are floats in quote currency, price_variation_24h is a decimal fraction, and provides a concrete example. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Returns' implies it).

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: first sentence states purpose and enumerates data points, second explains data formats, third provides a concrete usage example. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and the most important information (what it returns) 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 operation with no output schema, the description provides substantial context: specific return fields, data formats, currency context, and a usage example. It adequately covers the tool's purpose and output semantics, though it could benefit from mentioning typical response structure or error cases.

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% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema's description field, which already explains market_id format with examples.

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 market snapshot') and resource ('for a Buda.com market'), listing the exact data points returned. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on current market snapshot rather than historical data (get_price_history), orderbook details (get_orderbook), or other specialized functions.

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 through the example question ('What is the current Bitcoin price in Chilean pesos?'), which implicitly indicates this tool is for real-time price inquiries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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