RSS3 MCP Server

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. It only states the action ('Retrieve') without detailing permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns data, as it omits critical operational context.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loaded critical details like scope or output, which could enhance structure, but its brevity is efficient for the minimal content provided.

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. It fails to explain what 'DSL total requests' means, the data format returned, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable here, but it also doesn't clarify any implicit inputs or context, slightly limiting its value.

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 'Retrieve DSL total requests' restates the tool name 'API-getDSLTotalRequests' with minimal variation, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('DSL total requests'), but lacks specificity about what DSL refers to or what 'total requests' encompasses, failing to differentiate from sibling tools that also retrieve various metrics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like API-getAllNodes or API-getStakerStats, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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