Luno MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide critical behavioral information (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, etc.), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal context beyond this - it specifies 'limit order' which suggests price-based execution, but doesn't elaborate on execution risks, confirmation requirements, or rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds only modest value.

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 at just four words, front-loading the essential information ('Create a new limit order') with zero wasted words. Every element serves a purpose, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse while conveying the core function.

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 destructive trading operation with no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. The annotations provide critical safety information, and the schema documents parameters well. However, for a financial transaction tool, additional context about confirmation, execution guarantees, or error scenarios would be helpful given the high-stakes nature of order creation.

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 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (pair format, price as decimal string, BUY/SELL enum, volume meaning). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('a new limit order'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential alternatives like 'create_market_order' or explain what distinguishes a limit order from other order types, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'cancel_order' and 'list_orders' available, there's no indication of prerequisites, timing considerations, or when this specific order creation method is appropriate versus other trading actions.

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