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 describes the tool's function but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'provides' but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key functionality. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core idea without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context but lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, or usage scenarios. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to fully guide the agent, but it meets a minimum viable standard.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (topic and language). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning language retrieval but not elaborating on parameter usage or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'provides example code for NicePay API usage' and specifies it can retrieve code samples by language. It uses specific verbs ('provides', 'retrieve') and identifies the resource ('example code'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_api_endpoint or get_sdk_method, which might also provide code-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 mentions that code samples can be retrieved by language, implying usage when language-specific examples are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sdk_method or search_nicepay_docs. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.

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