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 and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool estimates gas price from multiple sources based on latest blocks and mempool state, uses fast gas price by default, returns results in the same order as input, and notes the credit cost (10 per API call + 10 per estimation). It also warns about unit conversion (wei vs. Gwei) for practical use.

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 but could be more front-loaded; it starts with credit cost details before stating the core purpose. Sentences earn their place by covering cost, functionality, behavior, and warnings, but the structure slightly buries the main action, reducing immediate clarity.

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 complexity of batch gas estimation with no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral details (sources, ordering, defaults), and critical warnings (unit conversion). However, it lacks explicit error handling or rate limit information, which could enhance completeness for this type of tool.

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 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('x-testnet-type'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by implicitly clarifying that transactions are submitted in the request (though not detailing the parameter structure) and emphasizing the batch nature, which compensates beyond the schema's basic enum documentation.

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 ('Get an estimated gas price and the number of gas units needed') and resources ('for multiple Ethereum transactions'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'eth_estimate_gas' by emphasizing batch processing. It explicitly mentions the scope of fee estimation and ordering of results.

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 estimating gas for multiple Ethereum transactions) and includes a practical note about unit conversion for transaction submission. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'eth_estimate_gas' for single transactions.

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