Underground Cultural District 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 clearly states this is a format check with no blockchain calls, which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or what constitutes a valid format for each chain type.

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 communicates the core purpose, scope, and limitation. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 validation tool with 2 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does and its limitations, but doesn't detail validation criteria, return values, or error conditions. Given the straightforward nature of address validation, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 50% (only the 'address' parameter has a description). The description adds context about what types of addresses are validated ('Ethereum or Bitcoin'), which helps explain the 'chain' parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide additional details about address format requirements or validation rules beyond what's implied.

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 ('validate'), the resource ('Ethereum or Bitcoin wallet address'), and the scope/limitation ('format check only, no blockchain calls'). It distinguishes this tool from potential blockchain verification tools by explicitly stating what it does NOT do.

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 context about when to use this tool ('format check only') versus alternatives that might perform blockchain verification. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or specify when NOT to use it beyond the format-check limitation.

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