Accounting voucher data for a stablecoin payment received by an EU/Danish business: value in DKK and EUR on the receipt date using ECB rates (assuming 1:1 peg), with tx reference and booking note. Not tax advice. Price 0.01 USD per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx | No | tx | |
| date | Yes | date | |
| token | Yes | token | |
| amount | Yes | amount | |
| network | No | network |
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 full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output contents, the 1:1 peg assumption, the pricing via x402, and a legal disclaimer, but it does not clarify read-only/idempotent behavior, x402 payment mechanics, rate limits, or error handling.
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 front-loaded and contains no filler: purpose, rate assumption, output fields, disclaimer, and price are all stated efficiently. The first sentence is slightly dense, but the overall structure is appropriate.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description should summarize return values, and it does: DKK/EUR values, ECB rates, tx reference, and booking note. It remains somewhat incomplete on input parameter specifics and x402 payment flow, but the core context is present.
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 meaning for the receipt date, tx reference, and stablecoin amount/token, but it does not explain the network parameter or provide format details for any input.
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 resource: accounting voucher data for a stablecoin payment received by an EU/Danish business. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from the Danish/EU data siblings, though it phrases the action as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.
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?
It gives a clear use context: a stablecoin payment received by an EU/Danish business, and adds a scope limitation with 'Not tax advice.' There are no close sibling alternatives to name, but it does not explicitly say when not to use the tool beyond the tax disclaimer.
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.