EVM MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reveals this is a polling operation (not a one-time check) and specifies it waits until confirmation is achieved. This goes beyond what annotations provide about safety characteristics.

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 perfectly concise with two clear sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word earns its place: first sentence states what it does, second sentence explains how it works. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 polling tool with good annotations and full parameter documentation, the description provides adequate context about its behavior. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., receipt data, confirmation status, error conditions), leaving some uncertainty about the result format.

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 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (txHash, confirmations with default, network with default). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Wait for a transaction to be confirmed') and mechanism ('Polls the network until confirmation'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_transaction (which retrieves transaction data without waiting) or get_transaction_receipt (which gets confirmation status without polling).

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 (after submitting a transaction, when you need to wait for confirmation), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like get_transaction_receipt for checking status without waiting. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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