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 mentions 'without looking up inputs', which adds useful behavioral context about what the tool does not do. However, it lacks details on error handling, output format (though output schema exists), rate limits, or permissions needed. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. The structure is efficient and easy to parse, making it highly concise and well-organized.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or usage examples. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'hex_string' is a 'Raw transaction in hex format'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type. However, with only one parameter and no schema descriptions, the description provides some compensation but doesn't fully detail constraints or examples. Baseline is appropriate given the single parameter.

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 verb 'decode' and resource 'raw transaction hex', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_transaction' by specifying 'without looking up inputs', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The description is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 by stating 'without looking up inputs', suggesting this is for raw decoding rather than enriched analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'analyze_transaction' or 'get_indexed_transaction', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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