orbuc-mcp-server

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world characteristics. The description adds value by enumerating the specific segments returned (public_companies, etf_funds, etc.), providing necessary context about data granularity not found in the schema or 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 efficient sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource; the second enumerates the segment breakdowns. Every word earns its place.

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?

While appropriate for a zero-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description omits clarification regarding the sibling 'orbuc_btc_holdings_segments' relationship and provides no hint about return value structure (totals vs detailed records), which is relevant given no output schema exists.

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 tool accepts zero parameters. Per evaluation guidelines, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter documentation where none exists.

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'), resource ('total BTC held by institutions'), and scope ('latest', 'broken down by segment'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'orbuc_btc_holdings_segments', which could create selection ambiguity.

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 'latest' implicitly distinguishes this from time-series siblings ('daily', 'weekly'), suggesting current point-in-time usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'orbuc_btc_holdings_segments', and does not state prerequisites or filter options.

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