Opinion.trade 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 gets 'current price' but doesn't explain what 'current' means (e.g., real-time, delayed, cached), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned price. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external data sources.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 price data (which can vary by source, timing, and format), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like data freshness, potential errors, or return structure, leaving the agent under-informed for reliable use.

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 'token_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying it's for 'a specific token/outcome,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra semantic value. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get current price') and the resource ('for a specific token/outcome'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_price_history' or 'get_market_details' which might also provide price-related information, preventing 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 like 'get_price_history' (for historical data) or 'get_market_details' (which might include price among other details). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context unclear.

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