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 mentions 'raw' data which hints at the return format, but fails to disclose error conditions (e.g., txid not found), rate limits, caching behavior, or whether this requires specific node permissions.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb. No redundant words or wasted space; every token contributes to understanding the core 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?

Lacks an output schema and provides no description of return values (e.g., raw hex string vs JSON object). Given no annotations and unknown error behaviors, the description is insufficient for robust agent operation without external 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'by txid' which aligns with the required parameter, and 'raw' which loosely connects to the `verbose` parameter's behavior (raw hex vs decoded), but adds no syntax details 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?

States a specific action (Get), resource (transaction data), and scope (by txid from Zebra). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `decode_memo` or `get_events` which may also access transaction-related data.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `send_shielded` or `decode_memo`. Does not mention prerequisites such as needing a valid txid format or availability in the Zebra node.

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