treasury-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the dual data source strategy (Satoshi API with fallback), pagination behavior, ordering (newest-first), and what fields are shown per transaction. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements.

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?

Perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by implementation details, behavioral context, and a dedicated parameter section. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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, but with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameters thoroughly, though could benefit from mentioning typical use cases or performance characteristics given the blockchain data source.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic information for all 3 parameters: address format expectations, offset's pagination purpose with default, and limit's range constraints with default and maximum. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Get paginated transaction history') and resource ('for a Bitcoin address'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_address_balance or get_address_utxos which focus on different address data. It specifies the exact scope of what's retrieved.

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 the data source (Satoshi API, mempool.space) and ordering (newest-first), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_transaction or search_blockchain. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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