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 discloses that the tool fetches and parses data from external sources (SEC EDGAR and IR pages), which implies network calls and potential rate limits or authentication needs. It also mentions returning a structured summary, but does not detail error handling, data freshness, or specific behavioral traits like response time or data formats beyond 'structured summary.' This is adequate but lacks depth for a tool with external dependencies.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by specifics on implementation for different company types, return value, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 complexity (external data fetching and parsing), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and return value at a high level. However, it could benefit from more details on behavioral aspects like error cases or data sources, but the output schema likely handles return values, so this is sufficient for most use cases.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'ticker' is a 'Company ticker or key' and provides examples (e.g., 'MSTR', 'METAPLANET'). This clarifies the parameter's purpose and format, though it does not specify constraints like valid ticker formats or handling of invalid inputs. Since there's only one parameter, the description does a good job of explaining it beyond the schema.

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: 'Fetch and parse the latest Bitcoin-related corporate filing for a treasury company.' It specifies the action (fetch and parse), resource (Bitcoin-related corporate filing), and target (treasury company). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on corporate filings rather than blockchain analysis, transaction processing, or other Bitcoin-related operations.

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 this tool: for retrieving the latest Bitcoin-related corporate filings for treasury companies. It differentiates between US companies (using SEC EDGAR) and Metaplanet (Japan, using IR page scraping). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, though the context implies it's for corporate data rather than blockchain analysis.

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