Call Remote MCP Tool

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does disclose the allowlist constraint and blocked login tools. But it omits whether the remote call may mutate state, what auth/permissions are required, how failures surface, and there is no output schema to fall back on — significant gaps for a generic passthrough that can invoke arbitrary remote tools.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the login-tool exclusion. Efficient, though the second sentence is narrowly scoped relative to the routing the tool actually needs.

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?

For a bridge tool with a nested free-form arguments object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: how results are returned, how remote errors are surfaced, and how to discover allowlisted tools/profiles. The schema covers parameters, but behavior and return handling are largely unexplained.

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 100%, so the schema already documents tool, profile, and the free-form arguments object; baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming guidance beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Call an allowlisted protocol MCP tool through WalletChan MCP.' It partially differentiates from siblings by ruling out login tools, but never names list_remote_mcp_tools (discovery) or call_protocol_tool (local counterpart), so an agent cannot fully distinguish it from those without reading schemas.

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?

It gives one explicit exclusion plus an alternative ('Login tools are blocked here; use the remote SIWE login helpers'), which is real routing guidance. However, it says nothing about when to prefer this over call_protocol_tool or list_remote_mcp_tools, nor how to obtain valid tool names/profiles before calling.

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