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 and does well: it discloses the API cost (10 credits per call), explains the gas price calculation methodology (from multiple sources, latest N blocks, mempool state), specifies default behavior (fast gas price), and notes the return unit (wei) with conversion requirement. It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 appropriately sized (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The note about unit conversion is essential but could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one well-documented parameter, the description provides good context: purpose, usage guidance, behavioral details (cost, calculation method, defaults), and critical conversion note. It doesn't describe the output format (though hinted via 'estimated gas price' and 'number of gas units'), which is a minor gap given no output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'x-testnet-type' is fully documented in the schema with description and enum). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an estimated gas price and the number of gas units needed for an Ethereum transaction'), identifies the resource (Ethereum transaction), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying Ethereum (vs. BSC, Celo, etc. in sibling tools). It goes beyond the tool name to explain what the estimation includes.

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 Ethereum transaction fee estimation) and includes a critical note about converting wei to Gwei for actual transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., eth_estimate_gas_batch for batch operations).

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