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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the irreversible nature of the action ('cannot be reversed'), security implications ('correctly signed'), financial implications ('fee implications'), and implementation details ('broadcast through the Satoshi API's node'). This covers safety, cost, and operational context that annotations would normally provide.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, critical warning, usage guidance, and parameter explanations in separate logical sections. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: the first states the action, the warning highlights risks, the third provides implementation context, and the parameter section documents inputs. No wasted words.

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 this is a high-stakes mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides complete contextual coverage. It addresses purpose, irreversible consequences, fee implications, implementation mode, and parameter semantics - everything needed for safe and correct usage beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It successfully explains both parameters: 'hex_string' is described as 'Signed raw transaction in hex format' and 'max_fee_rate' as 'Maximum fee rate in BTC/kvB to prevent accidental overpayment (default 0.10)', including units, purpose, and default value. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 specific action ('Broadcast a signed raw transaction') and the target ('to the Bitcoin network'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like decode_raw_transaction or analyze_transaction that analyze rather than broadcast. It uses precise technical language that identifies the exact operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Ensure the transaction is correctly signed and you understand the fee implications') and includes a strong warning about irreversibility. It also mentions an alternative context ('In hosted API mode...') that helps differentiate usage scenarios.

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