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 key behavioral traits: auto-detection of query types and returning 'the right data' based on detection. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'the right data' entails (though output schema may help). It adds value but leaves gaps in behavioral context for a search tool.

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 states the core functionality, followed by a structured 'Args:' section for parameter details. There's minimal waste, though the formatting could be slightly more polished. Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity or specifics.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, and auto-detection behavior. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. For a search tool with auto-detection, this covers the essentials, though more behavioral context would improve it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for the single parameter 'query', explaining it can be a 'txid (64 hex), block hash (64 hex starting with 0000), block height (number), or Bitcoin address'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type, including format examples and constraints. However, it doesn't cover edge cases or validation rules fully.

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: 'Smart search: auto-detects if query is a txid, block hash, block height, or address and returns the right data.' This specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('blockchain'), and scope (multiple query types with auto-detection). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_blocks' (specific to blocks) and 'analyze_transaction' (specific analysis). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all relevant siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 listing query types (txid, block hash, block height, address) and mentioning auto-detection, suggesting this is a general-purpose search tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_blocks' (blocks only) or 'analyze_transaction' (transaction analysis). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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