treasury-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool calculates but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, rate limits, network dependencies, or what happens when invoked. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that lists all key outputs without unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately specifies what information will be provided. Every word serves a clear purpose in defining the tool's function.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for its complexity level. However, with no annotations and a specialized blockchain calculation function, additional context about when this information is needed or how it's typically used would improve completeness. The output schema will handle return value documentation.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool where the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 calculates difficulty adjustment progress with specific outputs (blocks into epoch, blocks remaining, estimated time, projected adjustment). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on difficulty adjustment metrics rather than block analysis, transaction processing, or other blockchain functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential similar tools in the sibling list.

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. While it's clear this is for difficulty adjustment calculations, there's no mention of when this is needed versus other analysis tools, what triggers its use, or what context requires difficulty adjustment information. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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