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: the 200MB file size limit, the destructive overwrite behavior for existing tables, and the confirmation return. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context 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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by important constraints, then organized parameter explanations with a practical example. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The formatting with sections enhances readability without being verbose.

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, 0% schema description coverage, but with output schema present, this description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, constraints, parameters, return value, and provides an example. The output schema handles return structure details, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context. This is comprehensive for a data upload 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, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in the Args section: table_name accessibility pattern, data format requirements, description optionality, and is_private purpose. The example further clarifies data format. It doesn't specify character limits or validation rules, but provides meaningful semantic context for each parameter.

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 specific action ('Upload CSV data') and resource ('create or overwrite a table in Dune'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_table (which likely creates empty tables) and insert_table_rows (which adds to existing tables). The verb 'upload' combined with the CSV format and Dune platform context provides precise 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?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool: for uploading CSV data to create new tables or overwrite existing ones. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like create_table (no data upload) and insert_table_rows (append rather than overwrite), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or specify when NOT to use this tool.

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