Web3 Assistant MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions 'call a function' which implies execution, but doesn't address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only view call versus a state-changing transaction, gas costs, error handling, or security considerations. The description is insufficient for a mutation-capable tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 complex blockchain interaction tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what type of function call this performs (view vs. transaction), what happens on success/failure, return values, or security implications. The description should provide much more context given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value like explaining parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 ('call a function') and target ('in the solidity contract'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_contract_abi or local_wallet_address, which prevents a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of when to choose call_contract over analyze_contract_abi or local_wallet_address, nor any context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios for contract function calls.

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