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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks EVM compatibility but doesn't explain what 'EVM-compatible' means, how the check is performed (e.g., via API call, local lookup), potential errors, or the return format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, making it ideal for quick understanding.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, detailed compatibility info) or handle edge cases, which is crucial for a tool that checks chain compatibility. The simplicity of the tool (one parameter) doesn't compensate for these omissions.

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, with the 'chain' parameter documented as 'The blockchain to check.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't specify format (e.g., chain ID, name) or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 tool's purpose: 'Check if a chain is EVM-compatible.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('chain'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gateway_get_evm_chains' or 'gateway_get_supported_chains,' which reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'gateway_get_evm_chains' (which might list EVM chains) or 'gateway_get_supported_chains' (which might list all supported chains), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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