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

The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond the annotations: the non-custodial payment model (buyers pay directly on-chain, no commission), the fact that the server is never modified and needs no payment code, and that the api_key is shown only once and must be saved. These are essential operational traits not captured by readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint.

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 compact paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose and then covering usage context, payment model, server requirements, and return values. Each sentence earns its place; the list of synonyms is slightly redundant but reinforces the trigger conditions, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (proxy URL and once-only secret api_key), prerequisites (HTTPS and tools/list), and the critical warning to save the key. It also covers side effects (server never modified) and the payment model, making it sufficient for accurate invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that target_server_url 'must be publicly reachable over HTTPS and answer tools/list' — a requirement not present in the schema. It also contextualizes wallet_address within the direct on-chain payment model, though most parameter semantics remain in the schema.

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 begins with 'Start charging for an MCP server the user owns' — a specific verb and resource. It then enumerates synonyms (monetize, sell, charge, etc.) and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_earnings, list_registered_servers, or set_tool_price by focusing on the act of registration/monetization.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when they want to monetize, sell, charge for, get paid for...' It also adds a prerequisite (the user owns the server) and positions the tool as the entry point by stating 'every other seller tool needs it.' This clearly differentiates it from read-only or update siblings.

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