EVE Online Companion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether authentication is required, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the default 20 entries), what happens when no character is specified, or the format/structure of returned data. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place: 'Get' (action), 'recent wallet transactions' (resource), 'last 30 days' (scope). No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain authentication requirements, response format, error conditions, or how the 30-day constraint interacts with the 'entries' parameter. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'entries' means in context, clarify 'as_character' behavior, or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('recent wallet transactions') with a specific time constraint ('last 30 days'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'eve_wallet_balance' by focusing on transaction history rather than current balance. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other transaction-related tools that might exist in broader context.

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 alternatives. While it mentions 'recent wallet transactions,' it doesn't specify whether this is for personal character wallets, corporation wallets, or other contexts. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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