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 the tool's behavior by specifying what data it returns and clarifying the hosted API mode behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the data is real-time vs cached.

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 concise with two sentences that each add distinct value. The first sentence states the core purpose and returned data, while the second adds important contextual information about hosted API mode without 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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and provides important context about hosted API mode. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning whether this is a read-only operation or has any side effects.

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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on what the tool returns.

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 connected peer details') and resource ('peer'), listing the exact data returned (addresses, latency, services, version). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on peer information rather than blockchain data, transactions, or other network metrics.

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 ('Get connected peer details') and includes a specific usage scenario ('In hosted API mode, shows the API server's peers'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools for network-related queries.

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