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 searches documents but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), error handling, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic function.

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 well-structured, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by contributing essential information, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic function but lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context, which are important for a search tool. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more guidance on what to expect from the tool's operation.

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 description mentions '키워드로 관련 문서를 찾을 수 있습니다' (you can find related documents with keywords), which aligns with the single 'query' parameter in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema provides a clear description and examples), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already documented in the structured data, meeting the baseline for high 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: '나이스페이 개발자 가이드 문서를 검색합니다' (searches NicePay developer guide documents). It specifies the resource (NicePay developer guide documents) and verb (검색합니다/searches), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_api_endpoint or get_code_sample, which might also retrieve documentation-related content.

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 minimal usage guidance: it mentions that you can search for related documents using keywords. However, it offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_api_endpoint or get_code_sample, nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for its use.

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