DeFi Rates MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'latest' rates, implying real-time or recent data, but doesn't specify data freshness, rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice, such as whether it's idempotent or has performance constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains filtering options without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., rate structures, timestamps), how results are formatted, or any limitations like pagination. For a data-fetching tool with multiple filters, more context on output and usage constraints is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It lists filterable attributes ('platform, chain, asset, or collateral') but doesn't provide additional context like examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema descriptions. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic details, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors.

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: 'Get the latest DeFi lending rates (collateralized borrowing markets).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('latest DeFi lending rates'), and scope ('collateralized borrowing markets'), making the action and domain explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_best_rates' or 'compare_platforms', which likely serve related but different purposes in rate analysis.

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 mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't explain how this differs from siblings such as 'search_best_rates' or 'compare_platforms', leaving the agent to infer usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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