Audit a Cashu mint's health, NUT-06 compliance, and counterparty risk score. Provide the mint URL to get a clear risk assessment before engaging with the mint.
Audit Cashu mint health, NUT-06 status, and counterparty risk score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mintUrl | Yes | Target Cashu mint URL to audit | |
| forceRefresh | No | Bypass in-memory audit cache and perform fresh live probe (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not explicitly state whether the audit is read-only, whether it makes external network calls, whether it can be safely repeated, or what side effects 'forceRefresh' might have at the mint.
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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. 'Audit Cashu mint health' leads with the action and resource, then specifies the exact audit dimensions.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with complete parameter documentation, the description is adequate for selection and basic invocation. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the returned audit result looks like or how to interpret the counterparty risk score, which leaves a meaningful gap.
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 schema already documents both mintUrl and forceRefresh fully. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline for full 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 uses a specific verb ('Audit'), a specific resource ('Cashu mint'), and concrete audit dimensions (health, NUT-06 status, counterparty risk score). This clearly communicates what the tool does and differentiates it from payment, routing, and identity sibling tools.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, particularly check_trust_score which also deals with risk/trust. The description states what it does but not the conditions or scenarios that should lead an agent to select it over the alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.