Frontier-Compute/zcash-mcp

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 mentions what data is returned (txids and block heights) but omits critical behavioral traits: pagination behavior, response format/structure, rate limits, or whether this is an expensive operation. It also doesn't explain what 'ZAP1' refers to.

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 consists of a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundant or wasted text; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 absence of an output schema, the description partially compensates by listing the key data elements returned (txids and block heights). However, without describing the response structure (array vs object), pagination behavior, or data format, the description leaves significant gaps for a data retrieval 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?

The input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation guidelines, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ZAP1 Merkle root anchors'), clarifies scope ('all'), and specifies returned fields ('Zcash txids and block heights'). The word 'all' effectively distinguishes this from sibling 'get_anchor_status', implying historical vs. current state retrieval.

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?

While the description implies this is for historical data retrieval (contrasted with get_anchor_status), it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions for invocation.

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