DeFi Rates MCP Server

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 states the tool calculates metrics but doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, computational cost, or what format the results take. For a financial calculation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, 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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place: 'calculate' (verb), 'leverage looping strategy metrics' (resource), and the three specific metrics calculated. There's no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.

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 calculation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how the calculated metrics relate to the input parameters. While concise, it lacks necessary context for an agent to understand what to expect from invoking this tool.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions the metrics calculated but doesn't explain how parameters like 'ltv' or 'collateralPrice' specifically affect those calculations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: calculating specific metrics (leverage multiplier, liquidation price, interest costs) for a leverage looping strategy. It uses specific verbs ('calculate') and identifies the resource ('leverage looping strategy metrics'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_platforms' or 'search_best_rates' which might overlap in financial analysis contexts.

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 sibling tools like 'compare_platforms' or 'search_best_rates' that might be relevant for similar financial calculations, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for leverage looping strategy analysis versus other financial tools.

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