Stacks Clarity 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'security best practices' but does not detail what these entail, such as validation steps, error handling, or output format. The description lacks information on permissions, side effects, or performance characteristics, which is inadequate for a tool that likely involves complex template generation.

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 that states the core function without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 generating templates with security best practices, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the output looks like, how templates are structured, or what 'complete' entails, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer behavior.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (transactionType and assets). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how assets are used in templates or what 'common patterns' map to transactionType values. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 the tool generates a 'complete post-condition template for common transaction patterns with security best practices', which provides a general purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes 'complete' or 'common patterns', and does not differentiate from sibling tools like generate_fungible_post_condition or generate_non_fungible_post_condition, making it somewhat vague.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the more specific post-condition generation siblings. It implies usage for transaction patterns but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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