CC Explorer 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. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or potential errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 purpose ('Get network overview') and lists specific data elements without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose but lacks context on behavioral aspects and usage guidelines. It's adequate for a simple read tool but doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the agent to guess about outputs and operational constraints.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately focuses on what data is returned rather than inputs. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain non-existent inputs.

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 the resource ('network overview') with specific data elements listed (active validators, super validators, supply, consensus height, open votes). It distinguishes from siblings like 'validators_list' or 'super_validators_list' by indicating it returns a comprehensive overview rather than just one component. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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. With siblings like 'consensus_get', 'governance_get', and 'validators_list', there's no indication of whether this tool aggregates data from those or serves a different purpose. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone without explicit when/when-not instructions.

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