btcpay-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return values ('server version, supported features, and system status') and authentication requirements ('No store ID or API key required'). It implies read-only safety through 'verify connectivity' but doesn't explicitly state it is non-destructive.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with action, followed by return values, usage context, and authentication requirements. Every sentence provides unique value not found in the schema or annotations.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description provides sufficient coverage of return values and behavioral context without needing to enumerate output fields.

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 with 100% schema coverage (empty object). Per the baseline rules for zero-parameter tools, this earns a default score of 4.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and clear resource ('BTCPay Server version and system information'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_store_info (store-scoped) and get_lightning_info (lightning-scoped).

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('verify connectivity and check what features are available') and provides critical prerequisites ('No store ID or API key required'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings that likely require these credentials.

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