orbuc-mcp-server

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already provided in annotations, the description appropriately focuses on return value structure, noting that segments include 'btc_amount and source.' This compensates for the absence of an output schema by previewing the payload shape and key fields, without contradicting the safety 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?

The description consists of exactly two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the operation and resource, while the second efficiently documents the output structure. Every word earns its place without filler or repetition of structured metadata.

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 (no inputs) and good annotation coverage declaring it safe and idempotent, the description is functionally complete. It sensibly documents expected output fields (btc_amount, source) to compensate for the missing output schema, though it could briefly clarify what defines a 'segment' to achieve full completeness.

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 contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. The tool requires no arguments, so no additional parameter semantics are needed in the description.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('BTC holdings') and granularity ('per segment'). Mentioning 'segment' effectively distinguishes this from temporal siblings (_daily, _weekly) and the aggregate view (_current). However, it does not define what constitutes a 'segment' (e.g., by exchange, wallet type, or custodian), which limits the agent's ability to predict applicability.

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 the temporal alternatives (holdings_daily, holdings_weekly) or the total aggregate view (holdings_current). It lacks conditions for selection or prerequisites for use, leaving the agent to infer based on naming conventions alone.

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