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 but only identifies the data source ('from Zebra'). It fails to disclose whether the height is cached, the expected latency, error conditions (e.g., if the node is still syncing), or the return value 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 consists of a single, efficient eight-word sentence that front-loads the action verb. There is no redundant or wasted language; 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 tool's low complexity (zero parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides adequate domain context by mentioning 'Zcash' and 'Zebra.' However, it lacks information about the return value structure (integer, string, or object), which would be necessary for an agent to use the result correctly.

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, establishing a baseline score of 4 per the evaluation rubric. The description appropriately implies no filtering or input is needed to retrieve the current global chain state.

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 the 'current Zcash chain height' using the verb 'Get' and specifies the data source 'from Zebra.' It effectively identifies the specific resource being accessed, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_stats tool which may also return blockchain metadata.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stats or get_anchor_status. It omits any mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a synced Zebra node, or when this query might fail versus succeed.

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