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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the enriched nature of the data (resolved addresses, spent/unspent status, block context), the fallback mechanism to mempool.space, and the data source (blockchain indexer). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational 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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with the core purpose, immediately provides differentiation from siblings, explains behavioral characteristics, and ends with parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, differentiation, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics adequately. The output schema will document the return structure, so the description doesn't need to explain return values.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides the parameter name 'txid' and adds valuable semantic context: it's a 'Transaction ID' and specifies the format as a '64-character hex string'. This goes beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't explain validation rules or provide examples.

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 enriched transaction details') and resource ('from the blockchain indexer'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'analyze_transaction' by contrasting their data sources and output characteristics, making the differentiation unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It directly compares to 'analyze_transaction' (which uses raw RPC) and specifies that this tool returns resolved addresses, spent/unspent status, and block context. It also mentions the fallback behavior to mempool.space when the indexer is unavailable.

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