horus-flow-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 the tool's behavior by detailing the data sources (Binance Level 2 Orderbook, Aggressive Trade Feed), the real-time nature of the signal, and the specific metrics returned (e.g., signal, confidence, market_state). However, it does not mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving some gaps in 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, starting with the core purpose, followed by data sources, response details, parameters, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the bulleted lists enhance readability while efficiently conveying complex information. The example usage at the end reinforces practical application without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (real-time data analysis with multiple output metrics) and the presence of an output schema (which likely details the response structure), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, data sources, response components, and parameter semantics. However, without annotations, it could benefit from mentioning operational aspects like rate limits or error handling, slightly reducing completeness for a tool of this nature.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the 'symbol' parameter as a 'Trading pair symbol' with examples (e.g., BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, SOLUSDT), clarifying the expected format and usage. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, providing essential context for correct invocation.

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 ('Get real-time institutional orderflow signal') and resource ('for a cryptocurrency'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_equity_flow' (which targets equities) and 'scan_crypto_flow' (which likely scans multiple symbols). It explicitly mentions the data sources (Binance Level 2 Orderbook, Aggressive Trade Feed) and the type of intelligence provided (microstructure intelligence).

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 implies usage for real-time cryptocurrency analysis, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_crypto_flow'. It provides an example usage with 'BTCUSDT', suggesting it's for single-symbol analysis, but lacks clear guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.

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