Pending mempool size, fee floor, and a short highlight list.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_mempool_highlights"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does little: it doesn't say which chain or network the mempool belongs to, how fresh the snapshot is, whether results are cached, or whether any rate limit applies. The word 'highlights' also implies a curated/truncated view without explaining the selection criteria.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the primary metric and followed by the secondary outputs. Nothing is redundant, though the terseness partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of return-value and behavior information, and it gives just three nouns without structure, units, or freshness. For a data-fetching tool with no structured backing, that leaves the agent guessing about what it will actually receive.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema contributes nothing and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a plain no-argument call, leaving no parameter ambiguity to resolve.
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 names the resource (pending mempool) and the three things returned: size, fee floor, and a highlight list. It's clear what the tool fetches and no sibling in the list covers mempool data, so disambiguation is implicit rather than stated. The only shortfall is the missing explicit verb.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is meant for real-time fee estimation, monitoring, or a pre-transaction sanity check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.