Dritan 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 only states what the tool does ('Build an unsigned swap transaction') without any details on permissions required, rate limits, whether it's read-only or destructive, what happens on failure, or the expected output format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. However, 'with Dritan' adds minimal value without explanation, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's appropriately sized but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, output expectations, or usage context. For a tool that likely involves financial transactions, this lack of detail makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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?

With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds no parameter details beyond the tool's general purpose, failing to explain what each parameter means (e.g., 'walletPath', 'slippageBps', 'swapType'), their formats, or how they interact. This leaves parameters largely ambiguous.

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 states the verb ('Build') and resource ('unsigned swap transaction'), but it's vague about what 'with Dritan' means (likely a platform/service name). It distinguishes from siblings like 'swap_build_sign_and_broadcast' by specifying 'unsigned', but doesn't clearly differentiate from 'swap_sign_and_broadcast' beyond that. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the transaction's nature or context.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for building unsigned swap transactions, but doesn't specify prerequisites, when to choose this over 'swap_build_sign_and_broadcast', or any constraints. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, with no contextual hints.

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