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. It discloses that the tool performs decoding and analysis, and mentions implementation details about local nodes versus hosted API handling. However, it lacks information on rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what specific analysis outputs entail beyond the listed aspects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a structured Args section. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence in the Args could be slightly more concise.

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's moderate complexity (transaction analysis), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and some behavioral context. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. It could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines relative to siblings.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well in the Args section. It explains that 'txid' is a 'Transaction hash (64 hex characters)' and adds important context about local node requirements versus API handling. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all potential edge cases.

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: 'Decode and analyze a transaction' with specific analysis targets (inputs, outputs, fee rate, SegWit/Taproot flags, inscription detection). It distinguishes from siblings like 'decode_raw_transaction' by emphasizing analysis rather than just decoding, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 implies usage context through the Args section, noting that 'Local nodes need txindex=1 for confirmed txs; the hosted API handles this automatically.' This provides some guidance on prerequisites but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'decode_raw_transaction' or 'get_indexed_transaction'.

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