Cresium MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the preview-only nature (non-destructive), the prerequisite dependency on another tool, and the return format ('preview transaction and whether 2FA is required'). However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance and return information. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the preview nature, prerequisite, and return format. However, it could better address potential error conditions or authentication requirements given the financial transaction context. The 100% schema coverage helps compensate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only mentioning 'toId' in the context of the lookup_bank_address prerequisite. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Create a transfer preview') and resource ('transfer preview'), explicitly distinguishing it from actual execution with 'does not execute the transfer yet'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'confirm_transaction' by focusing on preview rather than completion.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use lookup_bank_address first to get the toId' establishes a prerequisite, and 'does not execute the transfer yet' clarifies when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'confirm_transaction'. This gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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