treasury-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'predicts' metrics, implying it's a read-only operation that doesn't modify state, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, uses real-time data, has rate limits, or provides confidence intervals for predictions. The behavioral context is minimal.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with all necessary information in a single, efficient phrase. Every word earns its place by specifying exactly what metrics are predicted without any redundant or verbose language.

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 has zero parameters, complete schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for its core purpose. However, as a prediction tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention data sources, update frequency, or prediction methodology to be fully complete for agent use.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema fully documents this. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools with complete schema coverage.

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: predicting specific metrics for the next block (transactions, weight utilization, miner revenue, fee percentiles, top-fee transactions). It uses a specific verb ('predict') and identifies the resource ('next block'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'analyze_block' or 'analyze_mempool'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to sibling tools like 'analyze_block' (which analyzes existing blocks) or 'analyze_mempool' (which analyzes pending transactions).

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