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 mentions the tool retrieves statistics (implying read-only) and specifies a time frame ('over N blocks'), but lacks details on rate limits, permissions, error conditions, or what 'transaction rate statistics' entails (e.g., average, median, format). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like data freshness or limitations, slightly reducing completeness.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains 'nblocks' as 'Number of blocks to average over' and provides a default value context ('2016 = ~2 weeks'), clarifying the parameter's purpose and typical usage. Since there's only one parameter and the schema lacks descriptions, the description effectively compensates, though it could specify units or constraints more explicitly.

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: 'Get transaction rate statistics over N blocks.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction rate statistics'), and the scope ('over N blocks') is explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_block_stats' or 'get_fee_estimates', which might also provide statistical data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_block_stats', 'analyze_transaction', or 'get_fee_estimates', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The default value hint ('~2 weeks') is useful but doesn't constitute usage guidelines.

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