orbuc-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable return value disclosure (status, database date range, segment count, record totals) which is crucial given the absence of an output schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose ('Check health...'), second details return values ('Returns status...'). Front-loaded with action verb and appropriately scoped for a simple health endpoint.

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?

For a zero-parameter health check tool, the description is adequately complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the four specific data points returned (status, date range, segment count, records).

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed for a health check endpoint, matching the empty schema without redundancy.

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 uses specific verb 'Check' with resource 'BTC holdings tracker' and clearly distinguishes this health diagnostic tool from sibling data retrieval tools (orbuc_btc_holdings_current, daily, weekly, etc.) by focusing on system status rather than financial 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 term 'health check' implies diagnostic usage versus data retrieval, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the holdings data tools, no prerequisites mentioned, and no 'when-not-to-use' exclusions provided.

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