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 does well by specifying the analysis outputs (front-running assessment, sighash analysis, remediation steps) and the return format (human-readable explanation). However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or any limitations of the analysis, which would be valuable for a security 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 perfectly structured and concise. It opens with the core purpose, lists the specific analysis outputs in bullet points, provides clear usage guidelines, and ends with parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is well-organized for quick scanning.

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 complexity (security analysis), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description does well. It clearly explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what analysis it performs. The output schema will handle return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on purpose and context. A perfect score would require mentioning some behavioral limitations.

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 provides the parameter name 'psbt_hex' and adds crucial context: 'Hex-encoded PSBT string (BIP 174 v0).' This specifies the exact format and standard required, which is essential information not present in the schema. However, it doesn't mention validation requirements or example formats.

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: to explain whether an ordinals inscription listing is snipe-resistant in plain language. It specifies the exact analysis performed (front-running vulnerability, sighash types, remediation steps) and distinguishes itself from raw analysis tools by emphasizing human-readable explanations for developers/marketplace operators.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when you need a clear explanation for a developer or marketplace operator rather than raw analysis data.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'analyze_psbt_security' which likely provides raw data, and provides clear guidance on the target audience and use case.

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