DeFi Rates MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain how it behaves: e.g., whether it fetches real-time or cached data, if there are rate limits, what the output format looks like, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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's complexity (comparing rates across platforms), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like data freshness, output format, or error handling, which are crucial for effective use. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (asset, collateral, chain) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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: 'Compare borrow/supply rates across different platforms for the same asset pair.' It specifies the action (compare), the data (borrow/supply rates), and the scope (different platforms, same asset pair). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_best_rates' or 'get_latest_rates', which prevents 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this comparison is needed, what distinguishes it from 'search_best_rates' or 'get_latest_rates', or any prerequisites. The user must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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