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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it estimates costs (not executes transactions), supports multiple address types, and shows savings from waiting. However, it lacks details on data sources, accuracy, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 core purpose stated first, followed by supporting details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second lists address types, and the third explains the benefit. No wasted words 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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, scope, and key features. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values, but it could better address parameter usage and behavioral constraints.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that parameters relate to address types (listing four specific ones) and urgency levels, though it doesn't explicitly map to 'input_count' or 'output_count'. The description provides useful context beyond the bare schema, but doesn't fully detail all parameters.

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 action ('Estimate Bitcoin transaction cost'), the resources involved (sats and USD), and the scope (different urgency levels and address types). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on cost estimation rather than analysis, validation, or data retrieval like other tools in the list.

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 mentioning 'different urgency levels' and 'how much you save by waiting', suggesting it's for planning transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_fee_estimates' or 'get_fee_recommendation', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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