meridian-edge-mcp

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 effectively describes what the tool returns ('recently settled events', 'verified outcomes', 'settlement history with outcomes and verification status'), though it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with a clear purpose statement, provides usage context, and then documents parameters and returns in labeled sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns adequately. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values extensively, though it could benefit from mentioning any behavioral constraints like rate limits.

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 meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'limit' controls the 'Number of settled events to return' and provides the valid range (1-10) and default value (5), which aren't in the schema. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 with specific verbs ('Get recently settled prediction market events') and resource ('with verified outcomes'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on settled events with outcomes, unlike tools like 'get_markets' or 'get_consensus' which likely show different data.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for checking how recent consensus predictions compared to actual results'), which implicitly suggests it's for post-event analysis rather than active market monitoring. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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