Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (Etherscan with terms reference), update frequency (real-time), and output format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details including SHA-256 hash for audit). This enriches behavioral understanding 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in a second sentence. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function and returned data, and the second specifies source, updates, and output structure. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (implied by mention of Katzilla envelope), the description is complete. It adequately explains what the tool does, its source, update behavior, and output format, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (address, limit, chainId) well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining chainId options beyond the schema's examples. However, it implies address usage and real-time data, which aligns with but does not extend schema information.

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 recent transactions'), resource ('for an Ethereum address'), and data source ('using Etherscan'), with explicit mention of returned fields like transaction hash, from, to, value, timestamp, and gas used. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crypto__etherscan-balance or crypto__etherscan-gas by focusing on transaction lists rather than balances, gas prices, or other metrics.

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 when to use this tool: to retrieve recent Ethereum transactions for a given address, with real-time updates from Etherscan. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer its purpose relative to other crypto tools.

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