treasury-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves 'raw block statistics', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, error handling (e.g., invalid height), rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior, warranting a low score.

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 highly concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose and lists metrics, and the second provides parameter semantics. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with key information. This is efficient and clear, deserving a top score.

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 low complexity (one parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and parameter meaning adequately. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context, which are minor gaps in this simple context, so it scores a 4 instead of 5.

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%, with one parameter ('height') documented only by title and type in the schema. The description adds crucial semantics by specifying 'height: Block height', clarifying that this refers to block height in the blockchain. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail constraints (e.g., valid range), earning a 4.

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 raw block statistics') and enumerates the specific metrics returned (median fee, total output, subsidy, weight, tx count). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_block' or 'get_blockchain_info' by focusing on statistical metrics rather than analysis or general info. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_block', 'compare_blocks', or 'get_blockchain_info'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and metrics alone. This is minimal guidance, scoring a 2.

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