orbuc-mcp-server

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating valid segment values (public_companies, etf_funds, etc.) and specifying date formats (YYYY-MM-DD), which is crucial given the openWorldHint suggests external data constraints.

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?

Uses an efficient 'Args:' structure that front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then documents parameters. Given the zero schema coverage necessitating manual parameter documentation, the length is appropriate with no wasted words.

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?

Adequately covers input parameters given schema gaps, but lacks description of return value structure (fields, units, granularity) which would be helpful since no output schema exists. Does not mention pagination, rate limits, or data freshness for the time series.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: it lists valid segment enum values, explains segment omission behavior, and specifies date string formats for start/end parameters. This is exemplary compensation for schema deficiencies.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Get daily BTC holdings time series' with specific verb and resource. The 'daily' and 'time series' qualifiers clearly distinguish this from sibling tools 'orbuc_btc_holdings_current' (point-in-time) and 'orbuc_btc_holdings_weekly' (different granularity), while the segment filtering mention distinguishes it from 'orbuc_btc_holdings_segments'.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on segment parameter ('Omit for aggregate totals') clarifying when to use filtering vs. totals. However, it lacks explicit comparison guidelines for when to choose daily vs. weekly granularity or current vs. historical data, though the tool naming makes this somewhat inferable.

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