VerdictSwarm MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: cost (0.10 USDC per call), authentication requirements (API key option), and payment mechanism (Solana tx signature). It also describes the consensus system and return format, though doesn't mention rate limits or error handling specifics.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, cost/authentication info, parameter explanations, and return format. Slightly verbose in the purpose paragraph, but every sentence adds value. The Args and Returns sections are efficiently organized.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good completeness: clear purpose, behavioral context (cost/auth), parameter semantics, and return format description. Could improve by specifying exact return structure or error cases, but covers most essential aspects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section: token_address purpose, chain options, depth levels, api_key usage, and tx_signature purpose. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema with no titles or descriptions.

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 with specific verbs ('perform comprehensive token risk analysis', 'execute a full scan') and identifies the resource ('token contract'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the 6-AI-agent consensus system and comprehensive nature, unlike quick scores or specific risk checks.

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 through the mention of cost and authentication options, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_quick_score' or 'check_rug_risk'. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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