Frontier-Compute/zcash-mcp

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 partially compensates by disclosing return values ('lifecycle events, leaf count, and verification links'), which hints at the data structure. However, it lacks information about authentication requirements, rate limiting, caching behavior, or whether this is a real-time vs cached query.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose and API source, second previews return values. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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?

Adequate for a simple single-parameter tool, and the preview of return values (lifecycle events, leaf count) partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, given the misleading tool name ('get_balance' vs described attestation functionality), the description should explicitly clarify this mismatch or provide usage context to prevent agent confusion.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('Wallet hash or agent ID to look up'), the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description mentions 'wallet hash' in the first sentence but adds no additional semantic context (format constraints, validation rules, or examples) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool retrieves 'attestation and anchor status for a wallet hash' and specifies the ZAP1 API source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_anchor_status (which presumably retrieves only anchor status) and get_agent_status by explicitly mentioning attestation data and lifecycle events.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_anchor_status, get_anchor_history, or get_agent_status. Given the tool's name ('get_balance') suggests financial/account balance retrieval but the description indicates attestation/verification data, explicit usage guidance is particularly needed but absent.

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