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 'decodes' and 'breaks down' opcodes, which implies a read-only analysis operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it handles invalid hex gracefully, what format the breakdown is in, if there are rate limits, or if authentication is required. The description is minimal and lacks necessary behavioral context.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another defining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. While efficient, the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly, but overall there's minimal waste.

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 an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and minimal behavioral disclosure, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs decoding/analysis. It adequately states what it does but lacks context on how it behaves, which is a gap given the complexity of script analysis.

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 some semantic context by specifying that 'hex_script' is 'Script in hex format'. However, it doesn't elaborate on valid hex formats, length constraints, or examples. With only one parameter and partial semantic clarification, this meets the baseline for adequate but incomplete parameter documentation.

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 specific verbs ('decode' and 'break down') and identifies the resource ('Bitcoin Script hex'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'decode_raw_transaction' or 'analyze_transaction' by focusing specifically on script opcode analysis rather than broader transaction decoding or analysis.

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 when needing to understand Bitcoin Script opcodes from hex input, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'decode_raw_transaction' (which might include script decoding) or 'analyze_transaction' (which might analyze scripts within transactions). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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