trust-check-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by stating 'no external API calls, no money handling' and detailing conditional return data ('when the OFAC list is loaded'). This goes beyond annotations with useful behavioral context, though it doesn't fully explain all nuance (e.g., why idempotentHint is false).

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 compact and front-loaded: first line states purpose, second line states boundaries, and the return block is clearly structured. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (no params) and the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and return structure, including a conditional block. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to document return values, making this complete.

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 zero parameters, schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. According to calibration, 0 params earns a baseline of 4; there is no gap to compensate.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Return service health, supported chains, OFAC list refresh timestamp + size.' It also provides distinct scope by emphasizing 'Pure introspection', which distinguishes it from likely siblings that might perform actual OFAC checks or actions.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'Pure introspection — no external API calls, no money handling.' This implies it is suitable for health checks without side effects, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond that. The boundary is clear, making it nearly a 5, but lacks explicit reference to sibling tools.

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

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

The description significantly augments the annotations by detailing rate limits (1 req/s + burst 3 + 3 concurrent), daily refresh from the Treasury XML feed, scope size (~93 entries), and the binary verdict (allow/block with no 'warn' state). It also repeats and reinforces the non-destructive nature: 'No money handling. No calldata. No signing surface. No transaction execution.' This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint 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 is longer than average but every section serves a purpose: scope, rate limits, refresh, verdict, exclusions, and safety. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary behavioral caveats. While it could tighten the exclusions list slightly, the structure is clear and well-organized.

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 (2 params, one required) and rich annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers rate limits, data freshness, scope size, return verdict semantics, and explicit non-behaviors. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail the return structure, but it still mentions the binary outcome. No important context is missing.

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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters ('address' includes regex; 'chainId' states default and only supported chain). The description adds little beyond the schema, only mentioning 'on Base' and the address type implicitly. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description provides no extra parameter-level meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Free wallet-address OFAC SDN screen on Base.' It immediately distinguishes its scope by listing exclusions ('No token-contract risk evaluation, no GoPlus signals...'), which separates it from potential sibling confusion. The phrase 'screen' followed by the specific list type makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 for when to use the tool: for US OFAC SDN wallet/EOA address checks on Base. It also gives exclusionary guidance by noting features that are 'not exposed through this MCP' (e.g., no token-contract risk evaluation, no anomaly heuristics). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (siblings like trust_check_preview), so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), the description adds critical behavioral context: returns fixed sample data, always has `_preview: true`, every factor is `real: false`, recommendation is prefixed with `sample-`, and warns against substring matching. It even instructs to test `_real is True` as a safety check. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then delivers essential warnings and safety checks. It is longer than typical, but every sentence serves a purpose. A minor deduction for some redundancy in repeatedly mentioning the `sample-` prefix, but overall well structured and efficient for the critical safety information.

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 preview nature and potential for misuse, the description is highly complete: it clarifies the shape (sample data, `_real`/`_preview` flags), provides a programmatic safety check, warns against common pitfalls, and references an alternative tool. The presence of an output schema also means return values are already documented, so no additional coverage is needed.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (address regex, chainId default and supported chain). The description adds no significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema states (e.g., 'Base 8453 only currently' is already in the schema). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Get a SAMPLE-FIXTURE preview of the PaladinFi token-contract trust check,' which clearly states the specific action (preview), the resource (PaladinFi token-contract trust check), and the key qualifier (sample fixture). This distinguishes it from the real trust check and sibling tools like trust_check_ofac_free.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use this for shape-testing your integration; DO NOT use the verdict to gate real swaps, signing, or any production agent decision.' It also points to an alternative: 'For free real-data wallet-OFAC screening, use trust_check_ofac_free from this same MCP server.' This fully covers when, when-not, and alternatives.

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