@baselab-me/signals-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true; description adds crucial context that this operates on 'Base chain' specifically and that it 'completes' the signal post, clarifying this is the final on-chain settlement step. Does not contradict annotations (write operation matches destructive/readOnly:false).

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 tightly constructed sentences. First identifies the action and target; second provides workflow sequencing. Zero redundancy, information-dense, front-loaded with the core verb.

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?

Adequate for a transactional blockchain tool: chain specified (Base), workflow position clear (after create_signal_coin), parameters fully documented in schema. Minor gap: no mention of gas implications or return value format, though no output schema exists to require return value description.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions referencing 'from create_signal_coin response'. Description reinforces this lineage via 'Use after create_signal_coin' but does not add syntax, format constraints, or examples beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb 'Submit' with resource 'transaction' and scope 'Base chain'. Distinguishes from siblings by positioning it in workflow after create_signal_coin (which creates the coin vs. this submitting it on-chain).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after create_signal_coin' and explains the outcome ('complete the signal post on-chain'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' warning or mention of alternative path for media (upload_signal_media).

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