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 mentions output features (urgency labels, cost comparison) but lacks details on data sources, update frequency, accuracy, or error handling. For a zero-parameter tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('compare fee estimates') and adds relevant details (urgency labels, cost, transaction size). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on how the comparison is performed, what urgency labels mean, or how it differs from sibling fee-related tools, leaving room for improvement in 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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds context by specifying a 'typical 140 vB transaction,' which helps interpret the output, though it doesn't fully explain if this is configurable or fixed.

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: comparing fee estimates with urgency labels and cost for a specific transaction size. It uses specific verbs ('compare') and resources ('fee estimates'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'estimate_smart_fee' or 'get_fee_recommendation'.

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 mentions a 'typical 140 vB transaction,' but doesn't explain if this is required, optional, or just an example, nor does it reference sibling tools for context.

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