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. It discloses the tool's purpose and context but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if verification fails. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's incomplete for a verification tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter/return details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 does well by explaining purpose, usage, parameters, and returns. However, it could be more complete by detailing error cases or verification criteria. For a 2-parameter tool with this complexity, it's largely adequate but has minor gaps.

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 provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'tx_signature' is 'The Solana transaction signature of the USDC transfer' and 'tool_name' is 'The tool name the payment is intended for (used to check amount).' This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('verify', 'confirm', 'debug') and resources ('Solana USDC payment', 'tool call'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on payment verification rather than risk assessment, pricing, or token analysis.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to confirm their payment before calling an expensive tool' and 'to debug failed payment verifications.' This provides clear context for usage versus alternatives, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools.

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