VerdictSwarm 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 effectively describes key traits: the tool generates markdown output, includes cost information (0.02 USDC per call or API key), and handles authentication via api_key or micropayment via tx_signature. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling beyond markdown error messages, or performance characteristics.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key details and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second elaborates on report content, the third covers cost/authentication, and the parameter/return sections are essential for clarity. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and returns, though it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines relative to siblings. The output schema existence means return values don't need detailed explanation, but the description still usefully notes markdown format.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all parameters: token_address specifies the contract/mint address, chain lists target blockchains, api_key explains authenticated access, and tx_signature clarifies Solana transaction for micropayment. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles, though it doesn't detail formats like address validation or chain enum values.

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 ('Get a human-readable markdown report') and resource ('for a token'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_rug_risk or get_quick_score that focus on risk assessment or scoring rather than comprehensive reporting. The mention of formatted content suitable for sharing further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 when a formatted report is needed for sharing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_token or get_quick_score. It mentions cost and authentication options, which provide some context, but lacks direct guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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