NicePay MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only), but doesn't mention potential constraints like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence. It efficiently lists the types of details provided (method, URL, parameters, examples) without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the purpose from the details.

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 moderate complexity (a single-parameter read operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output types but lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, it should do more to compensate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'endpoint_name' well-documented as 'the name of the API endpoint to retrieve (e.g., "payment approval", "transaction retrieval", "cancel" etc.)'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'retrieve detailed information about a specific API endpoint' with specific elements like method, URL, parameters, and examples. It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('API endpoint'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_code_sample or get_sdk_method, which might also provide API-related information.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (get_code_sample, get_sdk_method, search_nicepay_docs) or specify contexts where this tool is preferred, such as needing endpoint details versus code examples or broader documentation searches.

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