Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already provide 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 (Mempool.space), license (AGPL-3.0), update frequency ('real-time'), and detailed output structure ('Katzilla envelope' with quality scores and citation details). This enhances transparency 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 covers purpose, source, and output; the second explains the output format in detail. Every sentence adds critical information (e.g., source licensing, output envelope structure), with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it highly concise and well-organized.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects), rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It adds necessary context like source details, real-time updates, and output format explanation, compensating for any gaps and ensuring the agent has sufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 the parameter 'period' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and default). The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning 'for a given time period', which is already implied by the schema. No additional parameter details are provided, so it 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get Bitcoin mining pool statistics') and resources ('from Mempool.space'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the exact data returned ('pool names, block counts, and hashrate share'). It explicitly mentions the source (Mempool.space) and the output format (Katzilla envelope), making it highly specific and differentiated.

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 by mentioning the time period parameter ('for a given time period') and the real-time updates, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other crypto tools like crypto__blockchain-stats or crypto__mempool-fees). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving usage guidance at an implied level.

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