Rootstock MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Send a transaction' which implies a write operation that could modify blockchain state, but it doesn't disclose critical behaviors like required permissions (e.g., wallet authentication), potential costs (gas fees), irreversible effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's action without unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of blockchain transactions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like return values (e.g., transaction hash), error cases, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'get_current_wallet'). For a mutation tool with high stakes, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters (e.g., contractAddress, methodName, gasLimit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 'Send a transaction to a smart contract method' states a clear verb ('Send') and resource ('smart contract method'), but it's vague about what this entails compared to siblings like 'send_transaction' or 'call_contract'. It doesn't specify if this is for write operations, deployment, or other contract interactions, leaving room for 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'call_contract' (likely for read-only calls) and 'send_transaction' (likely for general transactions), the description lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing a wallet or network connection, or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly.

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