agentshield-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing: scoring methodology (three signals with point ranges), cost ('Free — no payment required'), and output structure (returns total score, components, ETH balance, transaction count, registration status). It doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or computational requirements.

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?

Perfectly structured with zero waste: first sentence defines purpose and scoring methodology, second describes output, third provides interpretation guidance, fourth covers cost, fifth links to sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context: scoring methodology, output structure, interpretation guidance, cost information, and sibling tool relationship. It doesn't specify response format details or error handling, keeping it from a perfect score.

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% with detailed parameter documentation, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the address format context ('Ethereum address on Base mainnet') and linking to the sibling tool for related functionality, elevating it above baseline.

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 specific action ('compute an on-chain utility score'), target resource ('Ethereum address on Base mainnet'), and scoring methodology (three on-chain signals with point ranges). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying this is a scoring function rather than price/liquidity/identity lookup operations.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Higher scores indicate more active and established on-chain agents' and 'Use lookup_agent_identity to retrieve full ERC-8004 metadata for registered agents.' This clearly differentiates from the sibling lookup_agent_identity tool and provides context for interpretation.

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