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 states the tool checks for binaries and returns install commands, but doesn't describe what happens if binaries are missing (e.g., error handling), the format of the return value, or any side effects like network calls. For a tool with zero 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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes specific details ('solana-keygen'), 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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or integration with siblings. Without an output schema, the description should ideally specify the return format, but it only mentions 'install commands' vaguely, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it does imply the tool operates without inputs, which aligns with the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss non-existent parameters.

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: checking if required local binaries are installed and returning install commands. It specifies 'solana-keygen' as the current binary, making the verb+resource specific. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'wallet_create_local' or 'wallet_get_balance', which might involve similar system checks, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for invoking it (e.g., before other tools), or exclusions. With siblings like 'swap_build' or 'wallet_create_local' that might depend on installed binaries, this lack of usage guidelines leaves the agent without clear direction.

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