Swarmrails MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses cost; it fails to mention return formats (despite no output schema), potential latency from decentralized Bittensor network calls, side effects, or rate limits. The mention of 'subnet 13' hints at the distributed nature but lacks behavioral implications.

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 consists of exactly two sentences with zero waste: the first establishes function and mechanism, the second states cost. Information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated immediately, making it highly efficient.

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 single string parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description meets minimum requirements. However, as a synthesis tool with no output schema, it should ideally describe expected return types (structured data, text summary, etc.). The cost disclosure partially compensates for missing annotations, but output documentation remains a gap.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with 'prompt' described as 'Data analysis request'. The description aligns with this by mentioning 'Data analysis and synthesis' but does not add substantial semantic value regarding prompt format, expected structure, or examples beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score for complete schema coverage.

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 performs 'Data analysis and synthesis' via 'Bittensor subnet 13 (Data Universe)', providing specific verb and resource identification. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'bittensor_scrape' (data collection) or 'bittensor_forecast' (predictive analysis), leaving some ambiguity about when to select this specific subnet tool.

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?

While the description includes cost information ('$0.005 per call'), it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bittensor_scrape or bittensor_forecast, nor does it mention prerequisites or input requirements beyond the implicit 'analysis' context.

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