mb_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It clearly conveys a read-only 'check' operation and adds value by specifying exactly what aspects are reported (operation mode, security limits, authentication status, daily spending). This goes beyond a vague 'status' label, though it doesn't explicitly confirm absence of side effects or permission requirements.

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 that states the primary action first, then lists concrete items covered. Every phrase earns its place, with no wasted words or filler.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and gives an outline of the return content, which is sufficient for selection and use.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details to explain. The description compensates by outlining the data returned, which gives the agent a sense of the output without needing a formal schema.

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 ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('configuration and health of the Mercado Bitcoin MCP server'). It visibly distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which focus on market data, account operations, or order management, while this tool is exclusively for server status.

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 gives clear context: use this to check server configuration and health. It implicitly targets users needing a high-level server overview. No explicit alternative is named, but there are no similar sibling tools, so the context is sufficient for an appropriate use case.

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