cryptopunks-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 implies a read-only operation by stating 'Get' and describes the type of data returned, but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. It adds some context about the tool's scope but lacks details on error conditions or response format.

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 in two sentences: the first enumerates the specific data points retrieved, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and context without redundancy.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could be more comprehensive by detailing the return format or data sources to fully compensate for the lack of structured output information.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the output semantics by listing the statistics returned, which adds value beyond the empty 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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('global CryptoPunks market statistics'), listing concrete data points like floor price, total supply, and volume. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it's for a 'market overview' rather than individual punk details or specific bid/offer operations.

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 for when to use this tool ('best endpoint for a market overview'), helping the agent understand its general purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as get_floor_price for just floor data or get_recent_sales for transaction history.

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