Tatum 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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), includes cost ('2 credits per API call'), and sources data from specific URLs. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or output format, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The two sentences are efficient, with the first stating the action and the second providing source URLs. There's minimal waste, though the bracketed '[fee_estimation]' could be integrated more smoothly.

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 (simple estimation with no parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and its data sources but omits details on return values, error cases, or integration context. This is adequate for a basic tool but has clear gaps in full 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. It earns a baseline 4 because the schema fully covers parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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: 'Get an estimated gas price and the number of gas units needed for an Elrond transaction.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('gas price' and 'gas units'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eth_estimate_gas' or 'bsc_estimate_gas' beyond mentioning Elrond. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions '[fee_estimation] 2 credits per API call,' which hints at cost, but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit usage rules or comparisons to siblings, it offers minimal practical direction.

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