btcpay-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adequately describes return values (node alias, version, channel count, balances) but omits safety profile (read-only status), auth requirements, or caching behavior expected for financial node operations.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose statement, Args documentation, and Returns documentation. Logical front-loaded structure where every line earns its place.

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?

Appropriately complete for a low-complexity tool (1 optional parameter). Since output schema exists, the brief return value summary is sufficient; no critical gaps remain for invocation decisions.

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema coverage. Despite schema lacking descriptions, the text provides clear semantics for crypto_code (Crypto code), concrete examples ('BTC', 'BTCTest'), and default value, fully documenting the single parameter.

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?

States specific verb (Get) + resource (Lightning node info and balance) + scope (for the store). Effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_wallet_balance (wallet vs lightning) and list_lightning_channels (node metadata vs channel details).

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. While 'for the store' implies context, it does not clarify when to prefer this over list_lightning_channels or get_wallet_balance for balance inquiries.

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