revettr-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully identifies the return format (risk score 0-100) and acceptable input types. However, it omits critical operational details: authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the scoring is deterministic, what constitutes a 'high' risk score, and any data retention policies.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose and context, second defines output, third enumerates inputs. Information is front-loaded and appropriately dense for a financial risk tool. No redundant or filler text.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description appropriately focuses on input semantics and high-level purpose. However, with six optional parameters and zero schema descriptions, the tool complexity demands explicit guidance on parameter combinations (e.g., 'provide at least one identifier') which is missing. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It partially succeeds by mapping five of six parameters to input types (EVM wallets, Stellar wallets, domains, IPs, company names). However, it fails to document the 'chain' parameter (defaulting to 'base') and critically omits the constraint that at least one identifier must be provided despite all parameters being technically optional in the schema.

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 specific action ('Score a counterparty'), the resource (counterparty), and the contextual trigger ('before sending money'). It also clarifies the return value (risk score 0-100), providing a complete operational picture without tautology.

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?

Provides explicit positive guidance on when to use ('before sending money'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools, but this is acceptable given there are no sibling tools requiring differentiation. The context is clear enough for proper invocation.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'the same signed RiskCheckResult as POST /v1/iss-verdict' and is 'Advisory and non-blocking', indicating safety. It also implies prerequisites (validated issuer). However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects, which are important for a complete picture.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It is well-structured, with the first sentence defining the action and the second providing context. However, the technical jargon ('RiskCheckResult', 'POST /v1/iss-verdict') slightly reduces accessibility.

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 has 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameters or provide examples. Although it mentions the output type, the lack of parameter guidance significantly hampers usability. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter semantics.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters. It mentions 'iss' implicitly but does not define it or elaborate on 'chain', 'iss_kind', or 'wallet_address'. This forces the agent to rely solely on parameter names, which are insufficient for correct invocation.

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 purpose: 'Get an advisory risk verdict for a validated MCP issuer (iss).' It specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'advisory risk verdict'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'score_counterparty', which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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 usage context: 'Attach this at your MCP `iss` validation step: identity is your job, this adds risk.' It implies the tool is used after identity validation and is advisory. However, it does not specify when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives like 'score_counterparty', leaving room for ambiguity.

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