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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the need for external key management and signing, which adds useful context about dependencies. However, it fails to describe critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a write operation (likely yes, given 'broadcast'), potential side effects (e.g., irreversible blockchain changes), error handling, or response format. For a complex transaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and a key prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds necessary context without redundancy. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 complexity (broadcasting transactions with 2 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral outcomes, error conditions, and how it fits with sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to help the agent use this tool correctly in a blockchain context.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning parameters like 'chainId' and the nested 'body' object are undocumented. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they relate to broadcasting transactions. With 2 parameters and complex nested structures, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent with little guidance on how to construct valid inputs.

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: 'Broadcast a signed transaction.' It specifies the verb ('broadcast') and resource ('signed transaction'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'encodeTransaction' or 'getTransactionDetails,' which would require more specific context 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 implied usage guidance by mentioning that 'You will probably need another MCP server dedicated in key management and signing before using this,' which hints at prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'encodeTransaction' or clarify its role in the transaction workflow, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 the full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential errors (e.g., invalid chainId), or performance considerations. More context on safety and constraints would be helpful.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity (2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or provide enough detail to use the tool confidently. More information on output format or common pitfalls would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds little beyond naming parameters. It mentions 'chainId' and 'pubkey' implicitly but doesn't explain their formats, valid values, or examples (e.g., chainId as a string identifier, pubkey as a hexadecimal). This leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter usage.

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 action ('derive') and target resource ('blockchain address'), specifying it's for a given chain from a public key. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getAccountState' or 'getAccountHistory' that might also involve addresses, leaving room for improvement in distinguishing its specific purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for generating new addresses versus retrieving existing ones, or how it relates to siblings like 'getAccountState'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool encodes transactions (implying mutation preparation), supports multiple transaction types with specific rules (e.g., stakeId/amount requirements for babylon chain), and includes critical error handling instructions. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on success.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but subsequent details about transaction types and error handling are mixed without clear separation. Some sentences (e.g., about convertAsset) could be more concise, but overall it avoids 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple transaction types, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, supported modes, and critical constraints. However, it lacks details on output format (what 'encoded transaction' looks like) and doesn't explain potential side effects or success behavior, leaving some gaps for a mutation-related 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 and 2 parameters (chainId and body), the description compensates fully. It explains that 'body' contains 'transaction intent in Adamik JSON format' and details the supported transaction types and their specific parameter rules (e.g., stakeId mandatory for babylon staking), adding crucial meaning beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose: 'Turns a transaction intent in Adamik JSON format into an encoded transaction for the given chain (ready to sign).' It specifies the verb ('turns'), resource ('transaction intent'), and output ('encoded transaction'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like broadcastTransaction or deriveAddress.

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 this tool (encoding transactions for signing) and lists all supported transaction types, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The error handling instruction adds practical guidance, though it's not about tool selection.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format/scope of the returned history (e.g., time range, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that retrieves data.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of retrieving transaction history (which could involve time ranges, pagination, or filtering), the lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand the full scope or behavior of the tool, especially compared to siblings that might handle similar data.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters (chainId and accountId). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what these parameters represent (e.g., chainId as a blockchain identifier, accountId as an account address or name) or their expected formats, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 ('transaction history for an account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getAccountState' or 'getTransactionDetails', which might have overlapping or related functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. With siblings like 'getAccountState' and 'getTransactionDetails' that might retrieve related account or transaction data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this tool.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains critical behavioral traits: balance amounts are returned in smallest units, mandatory conversion steps are required, common errors to avoid, and specific formatting requirements. This goes far beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, but becomes verbose with detailed conversion instructions. While all content is valuable, it could be more structured with bullet points or sections rather than dense paragraphs. Every sentence earns its place, but the presentation could be more efficient.

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 complexity of cryptocurrency balance handling, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral requirements, conversion procedures, error examples, and integration with sibling tools. This is comprehensive for a tool with significant behavioral complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While it doesn't explicitly define chainId and accountId parameters, it provides rich contextual information about how these parameters relate to conversion steps (e.g., chainId is used in listFeatures and getTokenDetails calls). The description adds significant value beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs and resources: 'Get the state of an account (balances and staking positions).' It distinguishes from siblings like getAccountHistory (which retrieves historical data) and getTokenDetails (which focuses on token metadata).

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 explicit usage guidance by mandating conversion steps and referencing sibling tools: 'MUST call listFeatures(chainId) first' and 'MUST call getTokenDetails(chainId, tokenId) for each token.' It also warns against common errors, clearly defining when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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 provided, the description carries full burden and does well by detailing what the specification covers (request/response schemas, chain families, parameter formats, etc.). It mentions 'cached specification' which aligns with the 'refresh' parameter, but doesn't disclose potential limitations like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points detailing coverage areas. While comprehensive, the bulleted list is somewhat lengthy but each point adds value for understanding the specification's scope.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about what the specification contains and when to use it. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., JSON/YAML structure) or potential error cases, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the resource 'comprehensive OpenAPI specification for the Adamik API', with specific scope covering '80+ blockchain networks'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on API documentation rather than operations like broadcastTransaction or getAccountState.

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 states 'Use this when you need exact API contract details for blockchain operations', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It contrasts with siblings by implying this is for reference purposes rather than executing actions like deriveAddress or getTransactionDetails.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, permissions required, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavior and parameter semantics. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps, especially in transparency and parameter explanation, which are important for an agent to use it correctly.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds some context by mentioning 'for a given chain,' which implies the 'chainId' parameter identifies the chain. However, it doesn't specify format, examples, or constraints, leaving the parameter meaning partially unclear.

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: 'Gets the list of known validators for a given chain.' This is a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('list of known validators') combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'getSupportedChains' or 'getAccountState', which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 this tool: 'This is only useful when asking the user to select a validator to delegate to.' This gives the agent a specific scenario for invocation. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the siblings, 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] a list' but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., array of integers, objects with metadata), pagination, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence: 'Get a list of supported chain IDs.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format or behavioral traits. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at the return type, but it doesn't. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps in context.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is efficient. A baseline of 4 is justified since it avoids redundancy while the schema fully handles the parameter aspect.

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 a list of supported chain IDs' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('supported chain IDs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like getChainValidators or getTokenDetails by focusing on chain IDs rather than validators or token details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before other tools like getAccountHistory or broadcastTransaction to verify chain support. With no usage hints, it falls to the minimal guidance level.

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 provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral context: it fetches token metadata (not native currency), provides the 'decimals' field, and explains how to use the output for balance conversion. It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, but covers the core functionality thoroughly.

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 states purpose, second emphasizes critical field and use case, third provides exact conversion formula. Each sentence adds unique value, and the 'CRITICAL' flag effectively front-loads the most important 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and how to interpret the output. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the return structure beyond the 'decimals' field, but the conversion example effectively communicates the output's purpose.

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%, so the description must compensate. While it doesn't explicitly name the parameters (chainId, tokenId), it provides essential semantic context: 'non-native token' implies tokenId identifies a specific token, and the context suggests chainId specifies the blockchain. This adds meaningful interpretation beyond the bare 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 verb 'fetches' and the resource 'information about a non-native token', specifying it excludes the chain's native currency. It distinguishes from siblings like getAccountState by focusing on token metadata rather than account balances or transaction details.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Always call this for each token when displaying balances' and provides a concrete example of converting raw amounts to human-readable values. It distinguishes from getAccountState by explaining this tool provides the decimals needed to interpret getAccountState's raw amounts.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states only that it 'gets info', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it's idempotent, has rate limits, requires authentication, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented, though it doesn't contradict any 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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Gets info'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every sentence (here, a single phrase) earns its place by stating the basic purpose, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 complexity (two required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how to interpret parameters, or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that likely retrieves detailed transaction data in a blockchain context, this minimal description leaves the agent with significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—no clarification on what 'chainId' and 'transactionId' represent (e.g., numeric chain identifiers, transaction hashes), their formats, or examples. With two required parameters and zero coverage, the description fails to provide necessary semantic context, leaving the agent to guess parameter usage.

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 'Gets info about a transaction' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'getTransactionDetails'. It lacks specificity about what kind of information is retrieved (e.g., status, amount, participants, timestamps) or what domain this operates in (blockchain transactions). While it correctly identifies the verb 'gets' and resource 'transaction', it provides no meaningful differentiation from what the name already conveys.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'getAccountHistory' and 'getAccountState' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for transaction-level details versus account-level queries, or whether it requires specific prerequisites like chain connectivity. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is retrieved (features and currency details) but doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action ('Get chain details') and lists specific components, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 complexity (retrieving detailed chain information) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It specifies what details are included (features and currency info), but doesn't cover the parameter meaning, return format, or behavioral traits. This makes it adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for full contextual awareness, aligning with a minimum viable score.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't mention the 'chainId' parameter at all, failing to explain what it represents or how to use it. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description adds no value beyond the schema, resulting in an average score.

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 chain details including supported features (read, write, token, validators) and native currency information (ticker, decimals, chain name)'. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'chain details' with specific components, making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'getSupportedChains' or 'getChainValidators', which prevents a score of 5.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'getSupportedChains' or 'getChainValidators', leaving the agent to infer usage context. This lack of explicit when-to-use or alternative references results in a minimal score.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is for getting usage information and should be used first, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what format the information is in, whether it's cached, or if it requires authentication. The description adds some context but lacks depth on behavior.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and provides essential usage instructions. However, it could be more specific about what 'information' it returns, which would help the agent understand the output better, especially without an output schema.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't attempt to. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and the description appropriately focuses on usage.

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 information about how this tool is supposed to be used.' It specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('information'), though it doesn't distinguish from siblings beyond the 'use first' instruction. The purpose is clear but not highly specific about what information it provides.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this tool first before any other tool from this MCP server.' It clearly states when to use it (first) and implies when not to use it (after other tools). This is a strong directive that helps the agent prioritize this tool over all siblings.

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