Look up Citizens City on-chain crafting recipes to see which raw commodities burn into which processed goods. Burn real input tokens to receive a real output token.
Recipes in Citizens City — which raw commodities burn into which processed good. Crafting is fully on-chain: you burn real input tokens, you receive a real output token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that crafting is on-chain and involves burning tokens, which implies a read-only informational tool. However, it doesn't state whether this tool has side effects (it likely doesn't) or any rate limits. Also doesn't mention what the output format is (e.g., a list or table). Neutral but slightly incomplete.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds critical context (on-chain nature). Perfectly sized and front-loaded.
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?
For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is quite complete. It explains the crafting mechanic and the on-chain aspect, which is sufficient for an agent to call it. The only minor gap is not specifying the exact response structure, but that's not critical given the simplicity.
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?
Tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining the domain ('raw commodities burn into processed good'), which helps the agent understand the context even without parameters. No parameter details needed, so this is near perfect.
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?
Clearly states the tool's function: showing which raw commodities convert into which processed goods via on-chain crafting. The verb 'craft' and resource 'recipes' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'commodity_how_to_trade' or 'forge'. No 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?
Implies usage: it should be used to understand crafting recipes, and the context hints that it's informational (read-only). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like 'craft_how_to' or 'commodity_how_to_trade'. Could benefit from explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.