Opinion.trade 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 the tool 'Get order book (bids/asks) for a token', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structure of bids/asks). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 (read operation with 2 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., format of order book data), potential errors, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns structured financial data, this lack of context makes it harder for an agent to use 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('token_id' and 'depth') fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, usage examples, or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'order book (bids/asks) for a token', which specifies what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_market_details' or 'get_price_history' by focusing specifically on order book data rather than general market information or historical prices. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_markets' might also provide order book data), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_market_details' or 'get_token_price'. The agent must infer usage based on the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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