treasury-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. It mentions what metrics are analyzed but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, computational cost, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description is functional but lacks important operational context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Both sentences earn their place, and it's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool. Minor deduction because the purpose statement could be slightly more front-loaded with the parameter explanation integrated.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple single parameter, the description is reasonably complete. However, for a tool that performs analysis, more context about what the analysis entails or how it differs from other block tools would improve 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by clearly explaining the single parameter 'height_or_hash' as accepting either block height or block hash with an example. Since there's only one parameter and the description fully documents it, this earns a high score despite the schema coverage gap.

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 analyzes a block with specific metrics (mining pool, SegWit/Taproot adoption, fee distribution, revenue), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_block_stats' or 'compare_blocks', which might also provide block-related analytics.

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. With many sibling tools related to blocks (e.g., get_block_stats, compare_blocks, search_blocks), there's no indication of when this specific analysis is preferred or what distinguishes it from other block-related tools.

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