Frontrun 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 describes the core mechanism ('diffing consecutive snapshots') and return format ('who each tracked account recently followed'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what happens when no new follows are found.

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 concise with just two sentences. The first sentence explains what the tool does and how it works. The second sentence provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the purpose and usage but lacks behavioral details (rate limits, auth needs) and doesn't describe the output format beyond 'who each tracked account recently followed.' Given the complexity and lack of structured output documentation, more completeness 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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: 'Detect new follows across tracked accounts by diffing consecutive snapshots' and 'Returns who each tracked account recently followed.' It specifies the verb (detect/return) and resource (new follows), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'frontrun_enriched_follows' or 'frontrun_account_activity' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 usage context: 'Use this to see what VCs/accounts noticed recently.' This gives a specific use case (monitoring VC/account attention) and timeframe (recently). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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