Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the source (Blockchain.info with MIT License), real-time updates, and the return format ('Katzilla envelope' with quality scores and citation details including SHA-256 hash). This enhances transparency about data provenance and structure without contradicting annotations.

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 in two sentences: the first states the purpose and key metrics, and the second explains the source and return format. Every sentence adds essential information (e.g., data source, licensing, output structure) without redundancy, making it front-loaded and concise.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema implied by the description of the 'Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, licensing, update frequency, and output structure, providing all necessary context for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively without needing to reference other fields excessively.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's function and output. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools, where the description compensates by detailing behavior and output.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get'), resource ('Bitcoin network statistics'), and specific metrics ('market price, hash rate, transaction count, and block time'), making the purpose highly specific. It distinguishes from sibling crypto tools by specifying the data source (Blockchain.info) and type of statistics, unlike tools like crypto__coinlore-stats or crypto__etherscan-price which focus on different cryptocurrencies or specific data types.

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 clear context for usage by specifying the data source (Blockchain.info) and that it returns real-time Bitcoin network statistics. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., crypto__coinpaprika for broader cryptocurrency data), leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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