orbuc-mcp-server

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

Since no output schema exists, the description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the specific returned fields: 'total_mcap_usd, daily_change_usd, and daily_change_pct.' This complements the annotations (which cover safety/idempotency) by disclosing what data structures to expect. It does not contradict 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 three efficient sentences: purpose declaration, return value specification, and source attribution. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

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 compensates by documenting return fields. However, with three completely undocumented parameters and no hints about date formats or pagination, the description leaves significant gaps for a data retrieval tool.

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 for the three parameters (days, start_date, end_date), the description fails to compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It does not clarify what 'days' represents (lookback period?), date string formats, or how the parameters interact.

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 tool retrieves 'historical daily total stablecoin market cap across all tracked issuers,' using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'latest' (current data) and 'coin' (specific issuer) by emphasizing 'historical daily' and 'total,' though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 siblings like 'orbuc_stablecoin_latest' or 'orbuc_stablecoin_aggregate.' It lacks explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites (e.g., date format requirements), or exclusions.

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