lazymac-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions features but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required inputs, output format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with a complex parameter object and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 with a list of features in a single phrase, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks structure to clarify the tool's function. Every word earns its place, but more content is needed for completeness.

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 implied by features like multi-exchange and DeFi, no annotations, a nested parameter object, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to use the tool, what inputs are expected, or what results to anticipate, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, stating it's a 'free-form params object' for GET/POST. The description lists features (e.g., FIFO, DeFi) but doesn't explain how these map to parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 lists features (FIFO/LIFO/Average cost basis, multi-exchange, DeFi, staking) but lacks a clear verb stating what the tool does. It implies calculation but doesn't explicitly state 'calculate crypto taxes' or similar. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on crypto tax calculation, but the purpose is vague rather than specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools include other calculators (ai_cost_calculator, startup_valuation) and crypto-related tools (crypto_signal), but no differentiation is offered.

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