Zero Network 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 states the tool 'gets' parameters, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 core action ('Get all Zero Network parameters') and follows with specific examples. Every word contributes to clarity 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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, output schema provided), the description is largely complete. It specifies what data is retrieved, though it could improve by mentioning the output format or linking to the output schema. With annotations absent, more behavioral details would enhance completeness, but the core purpose is adequately covered.

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 zero parameters, with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by listing examples of what parameters are retrieved (e.g., fees, limits, staking), which helps users understand the output scope beyond the generic 'get parameters' statement.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all Zero Network parameters'), listing concrete examples like fees, limits, staking, and slashing. It distinguishes itself from siblings like zero_validator_info or zero_transaction_format by focusing on network-wide parameters rather than validator-specific or transaction-specific data.

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. While it implicitly suggests usage for retrieving network parameters, it does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like zero_api_reference or zero_overview that might overlap in purpose.

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