Frontrun 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. It states the tool retrieves a 'snapshot' and 'current' data, implying read-only behavior, but does not address critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or potential errors (e.g., if the account doesn't exist). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and scope without any redundant or vague language. Every word contributes to understanding, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure, pagination), error handling, and operational limits, which are important for an agent to use the tool effectively in real-world scenarios.

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, with the 'username' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples like '@handle' or validation rules). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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'), resource ('current follow list'), and scope ('latest snapshot for a tracked account'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'frontrun_new_follows' (which likely shows changes) or 'frontrun_enriched_follows' (which may include additional data). It explicitly mentions 'Shows everyone they currently follow' to reinforce the static snapshot nature.

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 by specifying 'for a tracked account' and 'current follow list', suggesting it's for retrieving real-time following data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'frontrun_new_follows' (for changes) or 'frontrun_enriched_follows' (for enhanced data), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling tool selection.

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