cryptopunks-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Get') and highlights reliability for type classification, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and adds a key behavioral insight in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and key behavioral traits. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return format or error handling, but it adequately supports basic agent understanding.

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%, with the parameter 'punk_index' well-documented in the schema (integer, 0-9999). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 lightweight metadata') and resource ('for a CryptoPunk'), listing the exact data returned (type, type name, attributes array, attribute count). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is for 'lightweight metadata' and 'the most reliable endpoint for accurate type classification,' differentiating from tools like get_punk_details or get_punk_traits.

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: for obtaining 'lightweight metadata' and 'accurate type classification.' It implies this is preferable for type classification over other tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, though siblings like get_punk_details suggest more detailed data might be available elsewhere.

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