btcpay-mcp

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially succeeds. It discloses the return structure (IDs, amounts, statuses, dates) and the 'recent' limitation, but omits safety declarations, pagination behavior, and rate limits.

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 docstring format with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections that efficiently convey information without redundancy, though the formatting slightly deviates from standard prose.

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 single optional parameter and existence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context by specifying the default store scope and summarizing return fields, though it could clarify what 'recent' means.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting the `status_filter` parameter with its allowed enum values ('New', 'Processing', 'Settled', 'Expired', 'Invalid') and default behavior (leave empty for all).

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 the specific verb 'List' with resource 'invoices' and scope 'from the default BTCPay store', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like `get_invoice` (single retrieval) and `create_invoice` (creation).

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, it clearly scopes the operation to the 'default BTCPay store' and distinguishes its list-returning behavior from single-item retrieval tools through the explicit return value description.

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