MCP Etherscan Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify what 'recent' means (e.g., time range, block number), whether it includes internal transactions, the data format returned, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to ideal conciseness standards.

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 moderate complexity (querying blockchain data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., transaction list format, fields included), error cases, or behavioral constraints like rate limits or data recency. This leaves the agent under-informed for effective use.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters (address format and limit constraints). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying 'recent' in relation to the limit or address validation nuances. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('recent transactions for an Ethereum address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-token-transfers', but it's specific enough to avoid confusion with unrelated tools like 'check-balance' or 'get-gas-prices'.

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 like 'get-token-transfers' for ERC-20 transfers or 'check-balance' for balance queries. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid Ethereum address, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and parameters.

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