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: it's a scanning operation (not a simple lookup), it examines the full UTXO set, and it may take minutes (performance characteristic). The description doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but provides substantial operational 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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical behavioral context, and the Args section cleanly documents the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words.

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 this is a potentially slow scanning operation with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, performance implications, and parameter meaning. It could mention that this might be resource-intensive or have specific prerequisites, but provides good coverage for the tool's complexity.

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 for the single parameter, the description compensates by explaining that 'address' is a 'Bitcoin address to scan.' This adds essential semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic type information. It doesn't specify address format requirements or validation details, but provides clear purpose for the parameter.

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 ('Scan the UTXO set') and resource ('all unspent outputs belonging to an address'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_address_balance (which provides balance) or get_address_history (which provides transaction history). The verb 'scan' accurately captures the exhaustive search nature of this operation.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Scan the UTXO set for all unspent outputs belonging to an address') and includes a performance warning ('may take minutes'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like get_address_balance for a quicker balance check, which would have earned a 5.

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