btcpay-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It discloses return values ('title, amount, status, and generated invoice count'), which is helpful. However, it fails to state this is a read-only/safe operation or mention rate limits, auth requirements, or caching behavior.

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?

Excellent structure with three distinct, front-loaded sections: purpose statement, Args documentation, and return value description. No redundant text; every sentence 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and only one simple parameter, the description is sufficiently complete. It appropriately previews the return contents without needing to detail the full schema structure.

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 0% (parameter has title but no description). The Args section compensates adequately by defining 'payment_request_id' as 'The payment request ID', providing sufficient semantic context for this single required 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?

Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('payment request details'). The word 'specific' effectively distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'list_payment_requests'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_payment_request' or mention that an ID is required upfront.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_payment_requests'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to obtain the ID first) or error conditions (e.g., invalid ID).

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