Web3 Assistant MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'analyze' but doesn't explain what analysis entails (e.g., parsing, validation, extracting metadata), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what the output might look like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by specifying what 'analyze' means, but overall it's appropriately sized and structured.

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 complexity of analyzing contract ABIs (which can involve parsing JSON, extracting function signatures, etc.), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for an agent to understand the full scope and expected outcomes of the tool.

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 'abi' parameter documented as 'Solidity contract ABI JSON string.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('analyze') and target ('functions in the solidity contract'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'call_contract' or 'local_wallet_address', which appear to be related but distinct operations in a blockchain context.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an ABI), exclusions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'call_contract' (which might execute functions) or 'local_wallet_address' (which might handle wallet operations).

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