RSS3 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the retrieval action without detailing aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (a retrieval operation with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, potential errors, or other contextual details needed for effective use, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't add unnecessary details, meeting the baseline for tools without parameters.

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 states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'epoch transaction by hash', which provides a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what an 'epoch transaction' entails in this context and doesn't distinguish it from similar sibling tools like API-getStakingTransactionByHash or API-getBridgingTransactionByHash, making it somewhat vague.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose stated.

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