btcpay-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable context about what gets returned ('store IDs, names, and websites') and authorization scope ('accessible with the current API key'). However, it omits pagination behavior, caching, or explicit read-only/safety declarations.

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: action definition, return value specification, and usage guidance. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence.

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?

Appropriate for a low-complexity listing tool. Given the presence of an output schema (context signal), the description need not fully document return structures, but it helpfully previews the key fields. Covers the essential workflow context for BTCPay Server operations.

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?

Zero-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage (empty object). Per baseline rules for 0 params, this scores 4. The description adequately compensates by explaining what the parameterless operation accomplishes.

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 a specific verb ('List') with clear resource ('BTCPay Server stores') and scope ('accessible with the current API key'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling get_store_info by emphasizing this returns all stores and their IDs, establishing it as the discovery mechanism.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Use a store ID from this list as the storeId parameter for invoice operations.' This clarifies when to invoke the tool (when preparing to perform invoice operations) and how to use the output. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives.

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