Etherscan MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic function.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every word earns its place, contributing to clarity without redundancy.

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 complexity of a token supply query with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or return values, which are crucial for an AI agent to use the tool effectively. The description alone is insufficient for full contextual understanding, especially without structured support.

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 adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('chain_id' and 'token_address'). It mentions 'token address' aligning with one parameter but doesn't explain 'chain_id' or provide additional context like format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the total supply of a token given its address.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('total supply of a token'), and key input ('its address'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_token_balance' or 'get_token_holders_count,' which also retrieve token-related data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_token_holders_count' or 'get_token_balance,' which might be relevant for related queries, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection.

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