treasury-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or handles errors. The description adds no context beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get Bitcoin supply data') and lists the specific data points concisely. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with zero wasted information.

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, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the data returned, which compensates for the lack of annotations. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the output format or data source, though the output schema may cover this.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed by not mentioning any, aligning with the schema. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate, as the description efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.

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') and resource ('Bitcoin supply data'), listing the exact data points returned: circulating supply, max supply, inflation rate, subsidy per block, and next halving estimate. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on supply metrics rather than blocks, transactions, addresses, or network status.

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 when Bitcoin supply data is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_halving_countdown' (for halving details) or 'get_blockchain_info' (for broader blockchain data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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