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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'generate' implies a creation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes (e.g., Clarity source code file), whether it's idempotent, or any rate limits. The mention of 'production-ready' and 'security features' hints at quality but lacks concrete behavioral details.

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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying completeness, production-readiness, standard (SIP-010), token type (fungible), and quality aspects (security features, best practices).

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the 'what' well but lacks behavioral context (authentication, output format) and usage guidelines. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description should do more given the tool's complexity and lack of structured behavioral hints.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions (e.g., doesn't explain relationships between parameters like how initialSupply interacts with decimals). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('generate') and resource ('complete, production-ready SIP-010 fungible token contract template'), specifying it includes 'all security features and best practices'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_sip009_template or generate_clarity_contract by focusing specifically on SIP-010 fungible tokens with production readiness.

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 when to choose this over generate_sip009_template (for NFTs) or generate_clarity_contract (for general contracts), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a Stacks wallet or development environment setup.

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