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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'raw' and 'breakdown' hint at the data nature, the description fails to clarify what the breakdown contains (scores, volume, time-series?), data sources, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

Single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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 2-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description adequately identifies the domain. However, given the lack of output schema, it misses the opportunity to describe the structure of the 'breakdown' (e.g., bullish/bearish scores, mention counts) that would help an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'symbol' and 'credit_token' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'crypto asset' which maps to the symbol parameter, but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 action ('Get'), the specific resource ('raw social sentiment breakdown'), and the domain ('crypto asset'). It distinguishes from siblings (get_signal, get_regime) by specifying 'sentiment' rather than 'signal' or 'regime'.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus get_signal or get_regime. No mention of prerequisites or conditions where sentiment data is preferred over trading signals.

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