treasury-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a constraint ('Max 10 blocks'), which adds some context, but fails to describe other critical behaviors such as error handling, performance characteristics, or what 'block statistics' entails. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to guide safe and effective use.

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, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter details. It uses two sentences and a structured 'Args:' section efficiently. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more polished in formatting.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall, it falls short of being fully informative for effective tool selection.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, providing only titles and types. The description clarifies that parameters define an inclusive range ('Starting block height (inclusive)', 'Ending block height (inclusive)'), which is crucial for understanding. However, it does not explain units or validation rules, leaving minor gaps.

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: 'Get block statistics for a range of heights.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('block statistics'), and includes a constraint ('Max 10 blocks'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_block_stats' or 'search_blockchain', which reduces clarity in distinguishing its specific use case.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a constraint ('Max 10 blocks') but does not specify scenarios for its use, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_block_stats' or 'search_blockchain'. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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