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 mentions 'capabilities' but does not specify what information is returned (e.g., tool names, descriptions, parameters), whether it's a read-only operation, or any performance considerations like rate limits. 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Get a list'). However, the '[gateway]' prefix is somewhat cryptic and could be integrated more smoothly, slightly reducing clarity. Overall, it is concise with minimal waste.

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 does not detail the return format (e.g., list structure, data fields) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that lists capabilities, more context on output semantics is needed to be fully helpful to an agent.

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 parameter 'category' well-documented as an optional filter with an enum list. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter usage or effects. 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all available tools and their capabilities'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gateway_get_supported_chains' or 'gateway_get_evm_chains', which might list specific chain-related tools rather than all available tools. The inclusion of '[gateway]' adds some context but is not fully explanatory.

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, such as other 'gateway_' tools or tools for specific blockchain operations. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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