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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the data sources (Satoshi API blockchain indexer, falls back to mempool.space) and details the return values (total received, total sent, current balance, tx count, timestamps). However, it does not mention potential rate limits, errors, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps.

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, starting with the core purpose, followed by implementation details and parameter explanation in a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavior, data sources, return metrics, and parameter details, providing a solid foundation for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 compensate fully. It does so by clearly explaining the single parameter 'address' with its semantics (Bitcoin address in any format: legacy, P2SH, bech32, bech32m), adding value beyond the basic schema that only indicates it's a required string.

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 ('Get the total balance, transaction count, and first/last seen times') and resources ('for a Bitcoin address'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_address_history or get_address_utxos by focusing on aggregated balance metrics rather than historical details or UTXO listings.

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 for retrieving address balance information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_address_history or get_address_utxos. It mentions the data sources (Satoshi API, mempool.space) which provides some context, but lacks clear guidance on exclusions or specific scenarios favoring this tool over others.

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