orbuc-mcp-server

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, safe operations. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the three aggregation granularities (total vs symbol vs chain) and what data each returns (market cap, per-stablecoin breakdown). No contradictions with annotations 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 efficiently structured with the main purpose in the first sentence followed by clear, bulleted-style explanations for each level option. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary verbosity.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the aggregation dimensions but omits important context: expected date string formats, return data structure (time-series format), and pagination behavior. For a data aggregation tool with 3 parameters, it meets minimum viability but leaves operational gaps.

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 partially compensates by documenting the 'level' parameter's valid values ('total', 'symbol', 'chain') and their specific semantics. However, it fails to document the 'start_date' and 'end_date' parameters (2 of 3 params), leaving critical format and syntax information unspecified despite the schema providing no 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('daily aggregate stablecoin data') and clarifies scope through the three level options. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'latest' and 'health' tools by emphasizing 'daily aggregate' and multi-level breakdowns, though it could explicitly mention this is for historical time-series analysis versus current state.

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 implicit usage guidance by explaining what each level value returns ('total' for market cap, 'symbol' for per-coin, 'chain' for per-chain). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance comparing this to siblings like orbuc_stablecoin_latest or orbuc_stablecoin_mcap, and does not mention prerequisites like date format requirements.

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