DROYD MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by explaining key behavioral aspects: it clarifies that market cap values are in millions, lists available chains and sort options, and provides concrete examples. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no results match.

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 perfectly structured with clear sections (Filter Modes, Sort Options, Chains, Note, Examples), uses bold formatting effectively, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 complex tool with 21 parameters and no output schema, the description does an excellent job providing context through examples, unit explanations, and available options. The only gap is the lack of information about return format or what happens when filters yield no results.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining the million-unit convention for market cap and providing examples that illustrate parameter combinations, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema.

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 ('Filter and screen') and resources ('crypto projects using market criteria'), distinguishing it from siblings like droyd_search_projects by emphasizing market-based filtering rather than general search.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each filter mode (natural_language vs. direct), includes detailed examples for different scenarios, and lists available sort options and chains, giving comprehensive usage context without needing to reference alternatives.

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