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. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only status check (implied by 'Check' and 'Returns'), describes the specific metrics returned (indexed height, chain tip, sync percentage, etc.), and mentions the tool's purpose for monitoring sync progress. However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like error conditions or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by adding distinct value—no wasted words or redundancy.

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 (0 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what information it provides, covering all necessary context for effective agent use.

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 the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Check') and resource ('blockchain indexer sync progress'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_node_status' or 'get_blockchain_info' which focus on different aspects of blockchain/node status. It precisely defines what the tool monitors.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to check if the indexer is running and how far along the initial sync is.' This provides clear context for its application, distinguishing it from other status-checking tools in the sibling list.

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