lazymac-mcp

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 it mentions 'real-time signals,' it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what format the data returns, whether it's a read-only operation, or how frequently data updates. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Real-time signals' establishes the temporal nature, the four indicator names specify the data types, and 'for 100+ pairs' defines the scope. There's zero wasted verbiage.

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 that this is a data retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a complex free-form parameter object, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the signals come in, how to interpret them, whether there are authentication requirements, or provide examples of valid parameter configurations. For a tool that presumably returns structured financial data, more context is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'params' parameter as a free-form object. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what specific parameters might be expected (like pair symbols, timeframes, indicator configurations) or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: provides real-time technical indicators (SMA, RSI, MACD, Bollinger) for cryptocurrency pairs. It specifies the resource (100+ crypto pairs) and the type of data (real-time signals). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'k_market_intel' or 'k_exchange_rate' which might also provide crypto-related data.

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. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might be needed, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'k_market_intel' that might offer similar market data. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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