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 adds useful context about the 'hosted API mode' limitation, which clarifies that results depend on the server's perspective. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral traits like performance, error handling, or data freshness, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 phrase, followed by a clarifying sentence about the hosted API mode. Both sentences earn their place by adding value without redundancy, making it efficient 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's low complexity (0 parameters, read-only operation inferred from name), rich annotations (none provided), and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and a key contextual limitation, though it could benefit from more behavioral details given the lack of annotations.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing on the tool's output and context. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('network info'), listing key data points like protocol version, relay fee, connections, and warnings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., get_node_status, get_peer_info) that might provide overlapping or related network information.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'hosted API mode' and that it 'reflects the API server's network view,' which suggests when this tool is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_node_status for node-specific details) or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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