Luno MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, suggesting a non-read-only operation, but the description does not explain what 'destructive' entails (e.g., if it modifies data or has side effects). It adds value by specifying 'recent trades' and currency pair scope, but fails to disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what gets affected, beyond the annotations.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has no output schema and annotations cover some behavioral aspects, the description is adequate for a basic list operation but incomplete. It lacks details on return format, pagination, error handling, or how 'destructive' behavior manifests, which are important for a tool with destructiveHint=true and in a context with multiple trade-related siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters 'pair' and 'since' are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by implying filtering by currency pair and recency, but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema already covers, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('recent trades for a currency pair'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction' or 'list_transactions', which might also involve trade-related data, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.

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, such as 'get_transaction' or 'list_transactions', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks context for tool selection among the available siblings.

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