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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves data ('Get chain tips') and hints at a use case ('detecting chain splits'), but fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format entails. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the purpose and a key use case. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 that there are 0 parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations are provided, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and a use case, but without annotations, it lacks behavioral details like safety or performance traits. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but overall completeness is moderate due to missing behavioral context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing inputs. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates well for the lack of parameters by focusing on the tool's purpose and usage.

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 chain tips') and resources ('active chain, forks, and stale branches'), making it easy to understand what it retrieves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_blockchain_info' or 'get_network_info', which might also provide related chain data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning it's 'Useful for detecting chain splits', which suggests a context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, such as comparing to tools like 'get_blockchain_info' or 'get_network_info', and doesn't specify exclusions or prerequisites.

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