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 states the tool compares statistics side by side, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what statistics are compared, whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a mutation or analysis tool.

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, with the purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The 'Args:' section is structured but could be more integrated. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more polished for readability.

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 (comparing two blocks), no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It states the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage context. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values, but other gaps remain.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema. It lists 'height1' and 'height2' as block heights, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't compensate by explaining valid ranges, units, or constraints. The baseline is 3 because the schema provides the structure, but the description doesn't add meaningful value.

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: 'Compare block statistics between two block heights side by side.' It specifies the verb ('compare') and resource ('block statistics'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_block' or 'get_block_stats'. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'analyze_block' (for single blocks) or 'get_block_stats' (for stats of one block), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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