dune-mcp

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 that it retrieves results for a 'completed query execution,' implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the execution isn't complete. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's function, and the subsequent bullet points efficiently document parameters and return values without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return values, and the output schema handles return details, reducing the need for extensive description. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context, which are minor gaps in an otherwise solid description.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the purpose of each parameter: 'execution_id' is for a completed query, 'limit' specifies maximum rows with default and max per page, and 'offset' is for pagination with a default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., execution_id format).

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: 'Retrieve the results of a completed query execution.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('results of a completed query execution'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_query_results' or 'get_execution_results_csv', which would be needed for 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the execution must be completed), compare it to siblings like 'get_execution_status' or 'get_execution_results_csv', or specify scenarios where it's preferred over similar tools. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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