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 signing and broadcasting, implying a write/mutation operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, potential risks (e.g., irreversible broadcast), rate limits, or expected outcomes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 action without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of a transaction signing and broadcasting tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and expected results, making 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'base64 swap transaction' and 'local wallet', which loosely map to the parameters 'transactionBase64' and 'walletPath', but provides no additional semantics such as format details, constraints, or examples. This is insufficient given the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('Sign a base64 swap transaction with a local wallet and broadcast') and the resource ('through Dritan'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'swap_build_sign_and_broadcast', which appears to be a related or alternative tool, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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, such as 'swap_build_sign_and_broadcast' or other sibling tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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