Keeta Network 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 and does well. It discloses key behavioral traits: deterministic output based on seed/index/algorithm combinations, the format of the returned address ('keeta_...'), and its role as an identifier in other tools. It doesn't cover error cases, performance, or security implications, but provides solid operational context.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details, supported algorithms with brief context, and return format. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and it's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 derivation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the deterministic behavior, address format usage, algorithm options, and return structure. It doesn't cover error handling or edge cases, but given the straightforward schema and clear purpose, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the seed comes from keeta_generate_seed and lists algorithm options with brief explanations, but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('derive a Keeta account'), the resource ('public/private keypair'), and the inputs ('from a seed and index'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like keeta_generate_seed (which creates seeds) and keeta_request_test_tokens (which requests tokens) by focusing on deterministic key derivation.

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 for when to use this tool: to create deterministic accounts from seeds and indices, with the returned address used in other tools. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the purpose naturally differentiates it from tools like keeta_generate_seed or execution tools.

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