Aster Finance 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 mentions retrieving 'latest price' but doesn't specify whether this is real-time or delayed data, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is 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 complexity of financial data tools and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, data formats, potential errors, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'symbol' parameter documented as 'Trading symbol'. The description adds minimal value by implying it can handle 'symbol or symbols' (plural), but doesn't clarify if multiple symbols are supported via a list or array format. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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 as retrieving the 'latest price' for a 'symbol or symbols', specifying both the action and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticker_24hr' or 'ticker_bookTicker', which likely provide different price-related data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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. With many sibling tools related to trading and market data (e.g., 'ticker_24hr', 'depth', 'klines'), there is no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'ticker_price'.

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