Stacks Clarity MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'proper post-conditions' but doesn't explain what these entail, their security implications, or whether the tool validates inputs. It also omits critical details like error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements for a transaction-generation tool.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and output. Every word serves a clear function, with no redundant or vague phrasing, 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?

For a transaction-generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output format, error cases, security considerations, and how the generated transaction should be used post-signing. The absence of behavioral context makes it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool handles post-conditions, which is already suggested by the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('generate a SIP-009 NFT transfer transaction'), the resource involved (SIP-009 NFT), and the output ('transaction parameters for wallet signing'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'generate_sip010_transfer' by specifying the SIP-009 standard.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing ownership verification), differentiate from similar tools like 'generate_non_fungible_post_condition', or specify use cases beyond the generic transfer scenario.

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