skuuy_rpc

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds substantive behavioral context: zero-logging, no authentication required, a concrete rate limit (2,500 calls/day/IP, shared via the MCP server), and server-side rejection of write methods. This is exactly the kind of detail an agent needs to call the tool safely and avoid hitting quota or method errors.

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 front-loaded paragraph that states purpose first, then operational details. Every sentence carries useful information (no-key access, chain list, quota, write rejection), though the chain enumeration is redundant with the schema and could be trimmed.

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 moderate-complexity read-only RPC proxy with full schema coverage and existing annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: scope, chain set, auth model, rate limits, and method restrictions. Return values are standard JSON-RPC responses and require no separate output schema.

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 chain, method, and params with examples. The description repeats the chain list and method examples but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Sends a read-only JSON-RPC call through the Skuuy Private RPC Relay') and enumerates the exact scope: 12 named EVM chains. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like resolve_dns or hash_encode, which serve unrelated utility purposes.

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?

It gives clear context (zero-log, no API key, no signup, free tier) and an explicit exclusion: write methods like eth_sendRawTransaction are rejected server-side. However, it does not frame when an agent should pick this tool over other data-access approaches, though no direct sibling alternative exists.

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