btcpay-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses POST requests, HMAC-SHA256 signature verification, auto-redelivery behavior, and return values (webhook ID and configuration). It omits details like idempotency or validation behavior, but covers the critical security and delivery semantics.

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 uses a structured Args/Returns format that is efficiently organized. The event examples add value without verbosity. The single-sentence purpose statement is front-loaded and every subsequent line documents concrete behavior.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, security considerations (HMAC), return values, and delivery guarantees. It appropriately references the return value without duplicating the output schema.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the Args section provides essential semantic context for all 4 parameters: HTTP method context for url, comma-separated format and examples for events, cryptographic purpose for secret, and failure-handling behavior for automatic_redelivery.

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 opens with 'Create a new webhook for real-time payment notifications,' providing a specific verb (Create), resource (webhook), and domain context (payment notifications). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_invoice or list_webhooks.

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 real-time payment notifications' provides clear context about when to use this tool versus polling alternatives like list_invoices. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., URL must be publicly accessible).

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