Explain a BitPal API error code (HTTP status, cause, fix). Omit code to list all documented codes.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_error_code"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | e.g. SELLER_WALLET_NOT_CONFIGURED |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it discloses the answer's shape (status, cause, fix) and the dual lookup/list behavior, implying a safe read operation. It does not state behavior for an unknown or undocumented code, which is the main residual gap.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the alternate mode. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.
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 optional-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, returned content, and the no-argument case. Only the behavior for an unknown or malformed code is left unspecified.
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 coverage is 100% and the example value in the schema already illustrates the format, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds real meaning by explaining that omitting the parameter switches to a list-all mode, which the schema alone does not convey.
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?
States a specific verb ("Explain") and resource ("BitPal API error code") and enumerates the content returned (HTTP status, cause, fix). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings such as get_doc or get_api_operation, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.
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?
"Omit code to list all documented codes" gives explicit guidance for the second usage mode, which is genuinely useful routing information. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over search_docs or get_doc, so it is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.