iota-agent-mcp

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 states the tool 'Get[s] coin objects' (implying a read operation) and mentions utility, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'coin objects' entail (e.g., format, pagination). 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 zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get coin objects for an address') and adds useful context without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity of a blockchain query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., response format, errors), doesn't fully guide usage, and relies on the schema for parameters. For a tool in this context, more comprehensive information is needed to assist the agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('address' and 'coin_type') with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, but it implies the tool is for querying coins, which aligns with the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get coin objects for an address' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('coin objects'), and it adds context about utility ('useful for gas estimation and token queries'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'iota_wallet_balance' or 'iota_objects_by_owner', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 mentions general utility ('gas estimation and token queries') but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'iota_wallet_balance' or 'iota_objects_by_owner', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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