UluVoiMCP

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 discloses the return data structure (name, symbol, type, protocol, category) which is helpful, but doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 states the action, required input, and expected output. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter lookup with multiple return fields), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what data is returned but doesn't cover error handling, edge cases, or format details. For a tool without structured output documentation, more completeness would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'assetId' as an integer representing an asset or ARC-200 contract ID. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('identify') and resource ('Voi asset by ID'), and specifies what information is returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'identify_application' or 'resolve_name', 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. With multiple sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'identify_application', 'resolve_name'), there's no indication of when this specific asset identification tool is appropriate versus other lookup tools.

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