Selects the optimal Cashu mint for a payment by comparing trust scores and latency, honoring preferred mint when verified and healthy.
Route to the highest-trust, lowest-latency Cashu mint for a payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amountSats | No | Payment amount in satoshis | |
| minTrustScore | No | Minimum required trust score (default: 45) | |
| preferredMint | No | Optional preferred mint URL to prioritize if verified and healthy |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal whether this tool actually executes a payment, only returns a selected mint, or performs external network checks. The description also omits side effects, trust-score mechanics, and what the agent should do with the result.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently conveys the tool's core selection objective, though it could arguably expand slightly without becoming bloated.
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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It does not clarify what the tool returns, whether any payment is executed, or how the routing result should be used with sibling payment tools. An agent could reasonably misinterpret 'route ... for a payment' as meaning the tool itself sends funds.
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 all three parameters are already meaningfully documented in the schema. The description adds high-level algorithm context ('highest-trust, lowest-latency') that relates to minTrustScore and preferredMint, but it does not add per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline.
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 ('Route') with a clear resource ('Cashu mint') and a precise selection objective ('highest-trust, lowest-latency'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pay_cashu_nutzap, which executes payments, and audit_cashu_mint, which audits a mint rather than selecting a route.
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 phrase 'for a payment' gives useful context that this tool is part of a payment flow, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus pay_cashu_nutzap or pay_with_nwc, nor does it mention that routing should happen before the actual payment call. Usage context is implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.