axie-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness (e.g., real-time vs cached), error handling, or output format. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for missing annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes value by specifying the action, resource scope, and token list without redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits behavioral context like data source, update frequency, or return structure. While minimalism is acceptable for simple tools, the absence of annotations means the description should provide more operational guidance to be fully helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a baseline 4 for not needing to compensate for parameter documentation gaps, though it could theoretically mention why no parameters are needed (e.g., always returns all listed tokens).

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('current USD exchange rates for Axie Infinity tokens'), listing the exact tokens covered (ETH, AXS, SLP, RON, USDC). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on assets, profiles, or market statistics rather than exchange rates.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implicitly suggests use for exchange rate queries, it doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it differs from other market-related tools like 'get_market_stats' or 'get_overall_market_stats'.

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