Frontrun MCP Server

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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, whether this is real-time or cached data, or what happens if the account doesn't exist. The description mentions what data is returned but not how it's formatted or structured.

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 ('Get account status') followed by specific data elements. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential what (account status) and what data it includes. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention the response format or structure. The description is adequate but leaves gaps about behavioral aspects and output format.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, which is efficient and correct.

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 with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'account status', listing the exact data returned (balance, tracked account count, usage stats, pricing). It distinguishes from siblings like frontrun_account_activity or frontrun_list_tracked by focusing on account-level status rather than activity or list operations.

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. With siblings like frontrun_list_tracked (for tracked accounts) and frontrun_account_activity (for activity data), there's no indication of when this status tool is preferred over those more specific tools.

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