orbuc-mcp-server

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

While annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the specific data fields returned (total_supply_usd, issuer, per-chain deployment data), effectively compensating for the missing output schema. No contradictions with 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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope ('latest full snapshot'), while the second efficiently describes the return payload structure. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of safety annotations, the description is complete. It appropriately compensates for the absent output schema by describing the returned data structure, though explicit sibling differentiation would make it perfect.

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, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly requires no additional parameter clarification since the tool operates as a parameter-free endpoint.

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 specific verbs ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('latest full snapshot of all tracked stablecoins') and scope ('per-issuer breakdown'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'orbuc_stablecoin_coin_latest' by emphasizing 'all' and 'full snapshot' vs singular coin queries.

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 clear context through phrases like 'full snapshot' and 'all tracked stablecoins', implicitly guiding usage toward comprehensive data retrieval rather than specific coin queries. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'use X for single-coin data').

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