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 thoroughly explains security implications: private keys are redacted by default due to logging risks, and it warns that setting include_private_key=True exposes keys in conversation history, making them potentially compromised. This covers critical behavioral traits like security defaults and risks.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then prerequisites, security warnings, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff. The use of bold-like formatting (SECURITY, Args) enhances readability without verbosity.

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 complexity (cryptographic key generation with security risks), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites, security warnings, parameter meanings, and behavioral context, ensuring the agent has all necessary information without needing to explain return values (handled by output schema).

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It adds detailed semantics for both parameters: address_type is explained with specific Bitcoin address types (legacy, p2sh-segwit, bech32, bech32m) and their technical names, and include_private_key is described with security implications and default behavior. This goes well beyond the basic schema titles.

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: 'Generate a new Bitcoin address via the connected node's wallet.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('Bitcoin address'), and mechanism ('via the connected node's wallet'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze, decode, or query data rather than create cryptographic assets.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Requires a local node with a wallet loaded — not available when using the hosted Satoshi API.' It clearly states when the tool cannot be used (with hosted API) and implies it's for local node setups, differentiating it from sibling tools that may work with remote APIs or analysis functions.

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