treasury-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's function but does not cover critical aspects such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external data.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 adequate for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and a likely data-fetching operation, it should ideally mention behavioral traits like read-only nature or data sources to be more complete.

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 fully documents the inputs. The description adds no parameter information, but since no parameters exist, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 ('Get fee rate estimates') and resource ('for 1/3/6/25/144 block confirmation targets in sat/vB'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'estimate_smart_fee' or 'get_fee_recommendation' by specifying exact confirmation targets and units. It provides a precise, non-tautological purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'estimate_smart_fee' or 'get_fee_recommendation', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for fee estimation but lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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