EVM MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context by specifying that it retrieves the 'configured' wallet address, implying it returns the currently active wallet without modification. It doesn't contradict annotations but provides additional behavioral insight.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to understand.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with rich annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent) and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly states what the tool does and when to use it. A minor deduction because it doesn't specify the return format (e.g., string address), but annotations cover safety aspects adequately.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it implicitly clarifies that no inputs are required to get the configured wallet address. This aligns perfectly with the schema, earning a baseline score with slight bonus for contextual clarity.

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 the address') and resource ('configured wallet'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform different operations like transfers, approvals, or balance checks. It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to verify which wallet is active.' This provides clear context for its purpose, distinguishing it from alternatives like get_balance or get_transaction that serve different verification or information needs.

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