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 states the tool 'gets' an estimate, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires network access, has rate limits, returns structured data, or has any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the single parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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 one parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., network dependencies, error handling) and doesn't leverage the output schema to clarify return values. For a fee estimation tool in a blockchain context, more detail on accuracy or data sources would be helpful.

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 the parameter 'conf_target' with a brief explanation ('Number of blocks for confirmation') and range constraint ('1-1008'), which provides basic semantics beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, it doesn't explain units, default behavior, or implications of the value choice.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('fee estimate'), and specifies the scope ('for a specific confirmation target'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_fee_estimates' or 'get_fee_recommendation', which appear related.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_fee_estimates' and 'get_fee_recommendation' present, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred over those options.

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