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 communicates key traits: it's a simulation tool that uses live data, never places real orders, returns estimated values (price, fee, cost, slippage), and labels outputs as 'simulation: true'. This covers safety, data sources, and output characteristics comprehensively.

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 the deprecation warning and core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the deprecation note, simulation explanation, output details, parameter guidance, and an example. There's no wasted text, making it highly 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context for this simulation tool. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral characteristics, parameter usage, and includes an example. This adequately compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that omitting 'price' results in a market order simulation, while supplying it creates a limit order simulation. This provides crucial usage context not in the schema.

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: 'Simulates a buy or sell order on Buda.com using live ticker data — no order is placed.' It specifies the verb ('simulates'), resource ('order'), and distinguishes it from real order placement, making it highly specific and differentiated from siblings like get_real_quotation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it starts with '[DEPRECATED: prefer get_real_quotation for server-side accurate quotes]', clearly indicating a preferred alternative. It also explains usage context by stating it's for simulation only, not real orders.

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