Blockchain 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 'requires private key' for authentication, but fails to disclose critical traits such as whether the transaction is destructive (likely yes, as it sends), rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key constraint ('requires private key'). It contains no wasted words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, response format), error scenarios, and does not compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 specific action ('send a transaction'), target ('smart contract'), and scope ('any EVM-compatible chain'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-balance or static-call. It directly addresses what the tool does without being tautological.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'requires private key', which suggests authentication needs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like static-call (for read-only calls) or provide context on prerequisites. It offers some guidance but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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