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 adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It discloses that this is a placeholder implementation ('returns a clear placeholder payload'), explains the current availability status, and mentions integration stability. However, it doesn't cover potential rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed error behaviors.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with the core purpose, adds important behavioral context about the placeholder nature, then clearly documents parameters and return values in a formatted style. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary 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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, current implementation status, parameter meanings, and return value nature. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by explaining the placeholder response. For a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or performance characteristics.

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 description provides complete parameter semantics that compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose: 'chain: Blockchain to query (solana, ethereum, base)', 'min_risk_level: Threshold to include (MEDIUM, HIGH, CRITICAL)', and 'limit: Number of items requested (1-20)'. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema with only titles and types.

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 trending risky tokens for the selected chain.' It specifies both the action ('Get') and the resource ('trending risky tokens'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on trending risk rather than individual token analysis (like check_rug_risk or scan_token). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get_quick_score might also involve risk assessment).

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 context by mentioning 'for the selected chain' and listing parameter purposes, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_rug_risk or get_token_report. It mentions the tool is 'planned for a future API phase' which gives some temporal context, but doesn't clarify functional alternatives or exclusions.

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