Tatum MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '10 credits per API call' which indicates a cost/rate limit aspect, adding some value. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., fee structure, units), error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 reasonably concise but could be better structured. It front-loads the credit cost and purpose, but the blockchain list is lengthy and might be better summarized. The sentence structure is somewhat cluttered, though all information appears relevant.

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 (fee estimation across multiple blockchains), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the estimated fee includes, the format of the response, or how to interpret results for different transaction types. The blockchain list is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output details.

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 appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and context. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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: 'Estimate the current fee for different types of transactions' with a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('fee'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_blockchain_fee' by specifying estimation rather than retrieval, and from gas estimation tools by covering multiple transaction types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools in the list.

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 implied usage context by listing supported blockchains, suggesting this tool should be used for those specific chains. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'estimate_gas' or blockchain-specific gas estimation tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the blockchain list.

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