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 key behavioral traits: it's a fee estimation tool ('2 credits per API call'), returns gas price in wei, and requires conversion to Gwei for transactions. However, it doesn't cover error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical note on unit conversion. Both sentences are essential—the first defines the tool, and the second prevents user error. It's appropriately sized 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral note (unit conversion), but it lacks details on return format, error cases, or broader context (e.g., what '2 credits' means). For a tool with zero parameters, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics (gas price in wei, conversion to Gwei) rather than inputs, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary param info.

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 and the number of gas units needed for a Harmony transaction.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('estimated gas price and gas units'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'eth_estimate_gas' or 'bsc_estimate_gas' beyond mentioning 'Harmony transaction'.

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 implies usage for Harmony transactions and provides a note on converting wei to Gwei, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to other blockchain-specific gas estimation tools in the sibling list). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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