orbuc-mcp-server

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

Annotations already establish this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds domain-specific context that this retrieves supply data, but does not disclose rate limits, data granularity, or behavior when an invalid symbol is provided.

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 docstring-style formatting with 'Args:' is efficient and front-loaded. The first sentence establishes purpose immediately. Parameter documentation is compact, though the '(required)' notation for symbol contradicts the schema's zero required fields count.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs but lacks description of return values (data structure, time granularity) or error conditions. Given the 'openWorldHint' annotation, some mention of external data limitations would improve 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and provides critical semantic value: examples for 'symbol' (USDT, USDC, DAI), format hints for dates (YYYY-MM-DD), and semantics for 'days'. It loses a point for not clarifying parameter interactions (whether days and date range are mutually exclusive).

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 verb (Get) and resource (historical supply data) with scope (specific stablecoin), which distinguishes it from sibling 'latest' and 'aggregate' tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'orbuc_stablecoin_coin_latest' or mention when to prefer date ranges vs. days parameter.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'orbuc_stablecoin_coin_latest' for current data or 'orbuc_stablecoin_aggregate' for market-wide history). It also fails to explain the relationship between the 'days' parameter and 'start_date/end_date' parameters (mutually exclusive vs. complementary).

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