treasury-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains what the calculation does and how to interpret results, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like data sources, freshness, rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The description is accurate about the calculation but lacks 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 clear sections: purpose explanation, formula, result interpretation, and parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated immediately.

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 (financial calculation), no annotations, and the existence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the calculation, interpretation, and parameter usage well. The main gap is lack of behavioral context about data sources and limitations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description adds essential meaning beyond the schema. It explains that 'ticker' refers to company ticker or key and provides concrete examples ('MSTR', 'METAPLANET', 'SEMLER'). This compensates well for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 specific purpose: calculating the live mNAV premium/discount for Bitcoin treasury companies. It explains the formula (Market Cap / Bitcoin Treasury Value) and interprets the results (mNAV > 1.0 = premium, mNAV < 1.0 = discount). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on blockchain analysis, transactions, and Bitcoin network data.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when needing to evaluate Bitcoin treasury company valuations. It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, but the context strongly implies this is for financial analysis of specific companies rather than general blockchain operations.

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