Retrieve available Padrao Bitcoin products for purchase through the claw-mcp-toolkit server.
List all Padrao Bitcoin products available for purchase
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": "list_products"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It establishes the domain context ('Padrao Bitcoin'), but fails to disclose return format, pagination behavior, or whether the listing is real-time versus cached. The behavioral traits remain largely unspecified.
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 single sentence is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant words. Every element—'List', 'all', 'Padrao Bitcoin products', 'available for purchase'—serves a distinct semantic purpose without waste.
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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context to identify the tool's role in the ecosystem. However, it omits what 'Padrao Bitcoin' specifically refers to and gives no indication of the return data structure.
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?
With zero parameters in the input schema, this receives the baseline score of 4 as per evaluation guidelines. The description correctly implies no filtering capabilities are available by specifying 'all' products.
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 provides a specific verb ('List'), resource ('Padrao Bitcoin products'), and scope ('all', 'available for purchase'). It clearly identifies this as a catalog browsing tool, though it could explicitly differentiate from the sibling buy_stbtcx tool.
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?
While the phrase 'available for purchase' implies this is for pre-purchase browsing, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus buy_stbtcx or other crypto/finance siblings. No prerequisites or workflow context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.