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 adds useful context beyond the input schema by describing the return format ('Each entry has timestamp_ms, amount, price, and direction') and example use case. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or potential errors, which are important for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on return format and a practical example. Both sentences earn their place: the first defines the tool, and the second illustrates usage without redundancy. It's efficiently sized with zero waste.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, return format, and usage context. However, it could improve by mentioning pagination behavior (implied by timestamp) or error handling, which would enhance completeness for a data retrieval tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying market_id formats or timestamp usage. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 recent trade history for a Buda.com market as typed objects.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('trade history'), and scope ('recent'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_orderbook or get_price_history by focusing on executed trades rather than order data or price charts.

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: 'What was the last executed price for BTC-CLP and was it a buy or sell?' This implies it's for retrieving actual trade executions with price and direction details. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as get_orderbook for pending orders.

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