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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Retrieve'), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. This is inadequate 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 extremely concise with a single phrase 'Retrieve TVL in $', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to the tool's purpose, making it efficient 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 no annotations, no output schema, and low complexity (0 parameters), the description is incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context such as what 'TVL' refers to, the currency unit implied by '$', or what the return value includes. This leaves 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description does not add parameter details, which is unnecessary here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as no compensation is needed for missing param info.

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 TVL in $' states a clear action (retrieve) and resource (TVL), but 'TVL' is an acronym that may not be universally understood without context, and the purpose lacks specificity about what system or protocol the TVL belongs to. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on TVL rather than accounts, activities, or other metrics, but the vagueness of 'TVL' limits clarity.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools available (e.g., API-getStakerProfit, API-getNodeAssets), there is no indication of when this specific TVL retrieval is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.

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