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. While it mentions the product type and lack of collateral, it doesn't describe response format, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a data-fetching tool with 5 parameters, 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second clarifies the product type. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it easy to parse while being information-dense.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and product context but lacks sufficient behavioral and response information. It covers what the tool does but not how it behaves or what it returns, leaving gaps for a tool with filtering capabilities.

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%, providing good documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics by listing example platforms and assets, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. 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 with specific verbs ('Get single-asset earn/vault products') and resources ('Morpho Vaults, Spark sUSDS/stUSDS, Compound cTokens, AAVE aTokens'), distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on deposit-only yield products without collateral requirements. It explicitly differentiates from borrowing-related tools that might exist elsewhere.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'simple deposit products that earn yield without borrowing,' suggesting this tool is for yield-seeking rather than borrowing/looping strategies. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'search_best_rates' or 'get_latest_rates,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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