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 and successfully discloses the return payload structure (leaves, anchors, type distribution, tree height). It does not mention auth requirements or caching behavior, but 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation.

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?

Single sentence with optimal structure: verb and resource front-loaded ('Get ZAP1 protocol stats'), followed by a colon-delimited list of specific return values. No redundant or wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description achieves completeness by enumerating the exact statistics returned (total leaves, anchors, type distribution, tree height), fully compensating for the missing structured return type documentation.

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 of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter clarification since the tool takes no inputs.

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 protocol stats'), and distinguishes from siblings by listing unique aggregate metrics (total leaves, tree height) that contrast with specific-entity tools like get_anchor_status or get_balance.

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 implied usage context through the listed metrics (suggesting protocol-wide overview), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over similar query tools like get_anchor_status or get_events.

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