Frontrun MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search scope ('across all accounts followed by your tracked set'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of entities with details). For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose and parameters, and the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with key information. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the usage hint into the first sentence.

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 complexity (a search tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and scope adequately but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., output format, pagination, errors) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations. It's sufficient for basic use but leaves the agent to infer or guess about critical operational details.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (sector, keyword, entity_type, limit) with clear descriptions and examples. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'sector, keyword, or entity type' and the search scope, but it doesn't provide additional semantics like parameter interactions or default behaviors not covered in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high 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 tool's purpose: 'Search discovered entities by sector, keyword, or entity type.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('discovered entities'), and mentions the search scope ('across all accounts followed by your tracked set'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'frontrun_trending' or 'frontrun_enriched_follows' that might also involve searching or listing entities.

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 some usage context: 'Use this to find companies in a specific space.' This implies when to use it (for targeted searches), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'frontrun_trending' for broader discovery or 'frontrun_list_tracked' for already-tracked entities.

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