@baselab-me/signals-mcp

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

Annotations indicate read/write external operation (openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). Description confirms IPFS destination and signal coin context. However, it omits critical behavioral details: the two-step payment flow (evident only in parameter descriptions), what gets returned (likely IPFS CID), and that this is a prerequisite for create_signal_coin.

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 crafted sentences. First establishes action and purpose; second provides usage constraint. Zero redundancy, front-loaded with the core operation, no filler text.

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—IPFS upload, EIP-712 payment signatures, nested authorization objects, two-step invocation pattern, and lack of output schema—the description is minimally viable. It adequately covers selection criteria but should mention the return value format and payment requirement in the main description for operational 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description reinforces 'local file path' constraint for filePath and provides ecosystem context ('signal coin') for creatorAddress. No additional parameter syntax or format details added beyond 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?

Excellent specificity: 'Upload' (verb) + 'local media file' (resource) + 'to IPFS' (destination) + 'for use in a signal coin' (scope). Distinguishes from siblings by clarifying this is the media preparation step before create_signal_coin.

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?

Explicit conditional logic: 'Use only when you have a local file path' and 'skip if you already have an https:// or ipfs:// URL.' Provides clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, implicitly directing users to skip this tool if they already have a hosted URL.

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