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 discloses that the tool is a read operation ('Get') and adds important behavioral context: in hosted API mode, it reflects the API server's node, which clarifies the data source. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or response format, leaving some 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by a clarifying note about hosted API mode. Both sentences are essential—the first defines the tool, and the second adds critical behavioral context—with no wasted words or unnecessary details.

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) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and key behavioral nuance (hosted API mode). However, without annotations, it could benefit from more explicit safety or operational details, though the output schema mitigates this gap.

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 does not discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. A baseline of 4 is applied since it efficiently handles the zero-parameter case without redundancy.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Bitcoin network status', listing specific components like chain, height, sync progress, etc. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on overall node status rather than specific analyses (e.g., analyze_block) or data queries (e.g., get_address_balance).

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 clear context for when to use it: to retrieve comprehensive node status information. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by not covering specific analyses or queries, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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