refinore-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 the types of rewards included but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes specific details about reward types. There is no wasted language, and every part of the sentence 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data about rewards. It lists reward types but doesn't explain the return format, potential errors, or other contextual details needed for an AI agent to use it effectively. The complexity of handling wallet rewards warrants more comprehensive guidance.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'wallet_address' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'unclaimed rewards for a wallet', specifying the types of rewards included (unclaimed SOL, unrefined ORE, bonus ORE). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_balances or get_account_info by focusing specifically on rewards. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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_balances or get_account_info, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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