Tatum MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a fee estimation tool (10 credits per API call), which is useful cost information. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. The description adds some value but leaves significant 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 moderately concise but has structural issues. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second sentence about 'New endpoint which is unifying...' is awkwardly phrased. The list of supported chains is presented as a run-on sentence rather than structured, making it harder to parse. Some sentences could be more efficiently worded.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and supported chains. However, for a tool with cost implications (10 credits per call) and multiple sibling alternatives, it should better explain the unification aspect and what exactly it returns. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally mention response format, which it doesn't.

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 the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does mention this is for 'a transaction' without specifying how transaction details are provided. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 (wei) and the number of gas units needed for a transaction.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('estimated gas price' and 'gas units'), and mentions it's a fee estimation endpoint. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bsc_estimate_gas' or 'eth_estimate_gas', which appear to be chain-specific versions.

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: for gas estimation across multiple supported chains, listing them explicitly. It implies this is a unified endpoint replacing chain-specific ones, suggesting it should be preferred over siblings like 'bsc_estimate_gas'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives.

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