VerdictSwarm 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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it explains the return format ('score (0-100), derived risk level, and basic token metadata'), cost structure ('Free tier: 10 calls/day', 'Cost: 0.02 USDC per call'), and authentication details ('no auth required' for free tier, optional API key). It doesn't mention rate limits beyond the daily free tier or error handling specifics.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and usage guidelines, followed by cost details, parameter explanations, and return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 provides comprehensive context for a tool with 5 parameters: covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits (cost, auth, returns), and parameter semantics. It could slightly improve by detailing error payloads or rate-limiting beyond the free tier, but it's largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all 5 parameters: explains 'token_address' purpose ('contract or mint address to inspect'), lists valid 'chain' values, clarifies optionality and use cases for 'api_key', 'tx_signature', and 'client_id'. However, it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints beyond what's implied.

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 a quick risk score') and resources ('for a token'), distinguishing it from siblings by emphasizing speed ('cached or fast-path analysis') and scope ('quick risk score' vs. deeper analysis tools like 'check_rug_risk' or 'get_token_report').

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you need a fast confidence check before deeper analysis'), implying alternatives like deeper analysis tools, and provides context on free tier limits and authentication requirements, offering clear operational guidance.

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