DROYD MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (searching) and different search types, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no results are found. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Search Types, Attributes, Examples) and uses bullet points effectively. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the examples section is somewhat lengthy. Most sentences earn their place by providing useful information.

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 search tool with 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and how to use it. However, it doesn't describe the return format, result structure, or what happens when searches fail. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, more information about expected results would be helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining the different search types in more detail and listing available attributes, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The examples help illustrate parameter usage patterns.

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 as searching for crypto projects using multiple search methods (name, symbol, address, semantic query, project_id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like droyd_filter_projects and droyd_search_content by specifying it searches for 'projects' rather than filtering existing ones or searching content.

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 about when to use different search types (e.g., 'project_id - Direct ID lookup (fastest)', 'semantic - AI-powered concept search'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like droyd_filter_projects. The examples help illustrate appropriate usage scenarios.

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