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 lists pending requests, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose other traits such as permissions required, rate limits, or what happens if no pending requests exist. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 that front-loads the key information ('List pending signing requests awaiting approval') with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a straightforward purpose, making it easy to understand 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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or response format, which could be useful for an agent. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in contextual richness.

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 parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by focusing on the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 specific action ('List') and resource ('pending signing requests awaiting approval'), distinguishing it from siblings like iota_wallet_approve, iota_wallet_reject, and iota_wallet_sign_execute which handle approval actions rather than listing. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 implies usage when needing to view pending requests, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like iota_wallet_approve or iota_wallet_reject for handling those requests. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly defined.

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