SignalFuse MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the possible return states (risk_on, risk_off, neutral), which is critical behavioral information absent from the schema. However, it omits other important traits like caching behavior, data freshness, or whether the operation is idempotent/safe.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and possible values; the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing the possible regime values inline, which is essential for the agent to interpret results.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single optional parameter ('credit_token'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not mention the parameter, but given the schema is self-documenting, no additional compensation is required.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current macro risk regime'), and explicitly enumerates the three possible return values (risk_on, risk_off, neutral). While it implicitly distinguishes from siblings (get_sentiment, get_signal) by specifying 'regime', it does not explicitly contrast use cases with them.

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?

Provides context on when the tool is useful ('position sizing and directional bias'), which helps the agent understand the business context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or how it differs from the sibling signal/sentiment tools.

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