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' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the hash is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the staking transaction's format, return values, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a retrieval tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral and usage context to be fully complete.

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 parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable since there are none. It implies the hash is part of the tool name or context, but doesn't specify how it's provided, though this is minor given the schema.

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 staking transaction by hash' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (staking transaction), but it lacks specificity about what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'API-getStakingTransactions' (plural) or 'API-getEpochTransactionByHash'. It doesn't explain the scope or uniqueness of this retrieval operation.

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 sibling tools like 'API-getStakingTransactions' (plural) and 'API-getEpochTransactionByHash', the description doesn't indicate whether this is for single transactions, specific types, or other contextual differences. It merely states what it does without usage context.

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