lazymac-mcp

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. It mentions 'real-time + history' which hints at data retrieval behavior, but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what data sources are used, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 extremely concise - just 8 words that efficiently convey the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the key data types (KRW exchange rate, BOK base rate, CPI) and temporal scope. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the three data types more clearly.

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 financial data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the data returns in, how historical data is accessed, what timeframes are available, or how real-time data is updated. The combination of missing behavioral context and output information creates significant gaps for an AI agent trying to use this tool effectively.

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, documenting that 'params' is a free-form object passed as query string for GET or JSON body for POST. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as what specific parameters control (e.g., date ranges, currency pairs, data types). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 the tool provides KRW exchange rate, BOK base rate, and CPI data in both real-time and historical formats. It specifies the resource (exchange rate, base rate, CPI) and scope (real-time + history), but doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'k_market_intel' or 'k_public_data' that might offer related financial 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate versus sibling tools like 'k_market_intel' or 'ai_cost_calculator' that might handle related financial calculations, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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