RSS3 MCP Server

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 states 'retrieve' implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, no output schema, and low complexity (0 parameters), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'snapshots' entail (e.g., time range, format), behavioral context, or usage guidelines, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable since no parameters exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 snapshots of staker count' clearly states the action (retrieve) and resource (snapshots of staker count), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'API-getNodeCountSnapshots' or 'API-getStakerProfitSnapshots', leaving the specific scope 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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'API-getStakerStats', 'API-getStakersAndNodes'), the description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons, offering minimal direction.

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