Block MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool fetches exactly '5 latest' transactions (a behavioral constraint) and specifies the FRAX Network context. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format beyond what the output schema might cover.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or verbose language.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 1 parameter with low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, and a key behavioral constraint (5 latest). It could improve by mentioning error cases or network-specific nuances.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'address' parameter as 'the wallet address to check'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema type. However, it doesn't specify address format (e.g., hexadecimal, case sensitivity) or validation rules.

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 ('Fetch'), resource ('transactions'), scope ('5 latest'), and network context ('FRAX Network'). It distinguishes from siblings like wallet_check (which might check balance/status) and send_telegram_message (unrelated messaging).

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 implies usage when needing recent transaction history for a specific address, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like wallet_check (which might provide different wallet data) or when not to use it (e.g., for older transactions beyond the latest 5).

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