Dritan MCP

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 mentions 'sign locally with wallet' and 'broadcast', indicating mutation and network interaction, but fails to disclose critical traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'broadcast' entails (e.g., irreversible transaction submission). For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 key information: it's a convenience tool that combines three operations. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details, 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's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, return values, and error conditions. For a mutation tool involving wallet signing and broadcasting, this minimal description doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 0%, meaning none of the 9 parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides no additional meaning for parameters beyond implying they relate to building and executing a swap (e.g., 'walletPath' for signing, 'inputMint'/'outputMint' for the swap). It doesn't explain what each parameter does, their formats, or constraints, failing to compensate for the low coverage and leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 performs three specific operations in sequence: build swap, sign locally with wallet, and broadcast. It distinguishes itself as a 'convenience tool' that combines these steps into one call, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'swap_build' and 'swap_sign_and_broadcast' that handle individual steps. However, it doesn't specify what resource is being swapped (e.g., tokens or assets), leaving some ambiguity.

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 you want to execute a swap transaction end-to-end in a single call, suggesting it's for convenience over using separate build and sign/broadcast tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'swap_build' followed by 'swap_sign_and_broadcast', nor does it mention prerequisites such as having a local wallet or network conditions. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or detailed alternatives.

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