dune-mcp

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 key behavioral traits: it consumes credits, doesn't trigger new execution, returns cached results, and handles pagination/truncation. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers the essential operational 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement first, followed by behavioral context, then parameter explanations, and finally return format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is well-organized for quick comprehension.

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, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavioral constraints, all parameter meanings, and mentions the return format, providing sufficient context for the agent to use the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters' semantics: query_id as 'unique identifier', limit as 'maximum rows', offset for 'pagination', and allow_partial_results for allowing 'truncated results if data is too large'. This 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 ('Get the latest results', 'retrieves cached results') and distinguishes it from siblings like execute_query by emphasizing it doesn't trigger new execution. It explicitly identifies the resource as 'saved query' results.

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 about when to use this tool ('without re-executing', 'retrieves cached results from the most recent execution') and distinguishes it from execution tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like get_execution_results for fresh results.

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