AgentFund MCP Server

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 tool finds projects based on an agent address, but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it returns all projects or is paginated, what the output format looks like (since no output schema), if there are rate limits, or any authentication requirements. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds usage context. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy 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 (a query operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values include (e.g., project details, statuses) or behavioral aspects like pagination. For a tool that likely returns multiple projects, more context on output and limitations is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'agentAddress' documented as 'Your wallet address to search for.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reiterating 'a specific address' without providing additional context like format examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Find all AgentFund projects where a specific address is the agent (recipient).' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('AgentFund projects'), and scope ('where a specific address is the agent'), distinguishing it from siblings like agentfund_get_project (which likely gets a single project). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from agentfund_get_stats, which might also involve project data, 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 implied usage guidance: 'Use this to find projects you're fundraising for.' This suggests the tool is for agents to locate their own projects, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., agentfund_get_project for a specific project ID) or any exclusions. No clear when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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