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 excels by disclosing: computational behavior ('computes an approximate TVL in USD using the current spot price'), accuracy limitations ('tvl_usd_approx is a rough estimate based on the symmetric liquidity assumption'), data freshness ('No caching — each call reads live on-chain data'), cost implications ('Free tier — no payment required'), and return format details. This goes well beyond minimum 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?

Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by implementation details, limitations, behavioral context, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with zero waste. The structure flows logically from what the tool does to how to use it.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive coverage: explains what it does, how it works, accuracy limitations, behavioral traits, cost implications, prerequisites, and return values. It fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the parameter's purpose ('Trading pair identifier') and connecting it to the sibling tool ('Use list_trading_pairs first to discover available pools'). However, it doesn't provide additional format or validation details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Fetch the current liquidity'), resource ('for a Uniswap V3 pool on Base mainnet'), and scope ('TVL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's for liquidity/TVL rather than price discovery (get_dex_price) or pool listing (list_trading_pairs).

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 states when to use this tool ('Use list_trading_pairs first to discover available pools') and when to use alternatives ('and get_dex_price for the current price'). Provides clear context about prerequisites and complementary tools.

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