SharpEdge 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. It discloses that the tool returns real-time statistics from a running scanner processing thousands of events every 7 minutes, which adds useful context about data freshness and scale. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps. This is adequate but not comprehensive, warranting a 3.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function and context without unnecessary details. The first sentence lists the key statistics retrieved, and the second adds operational context about SharpEdge. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise, keeping it at a 4.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It explains what statistics are returned and provides context about the scanner's operation. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return values' structure or types, and it misses behavioral aspects like error cases. This is adequate but has clear gaps, scoring a 3.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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: to retrieve current SharpEdge AI scan statistics including specific metrics like edges found today, arbitrage opportunities, total events scanned, and active sports. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on real-time operational statistics rather than explanations, features, pricing, or sample data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with each sibling tool, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 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 like get_features or get_sample_edges. It mentions that SharpEdge processes events every 7 minutes, which implies timeliness, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, this scores a 2.

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