treasury-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: auto-payment with Lightning, environment variable requirement, and L402 micropayment support. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, error handling, authentication details beyond micropayments, or what the response looks like (though an output schema exists). It provides some behavioral insight but leaves gaps for a tool with external dependencies.

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 is well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by prerequisites and payment support, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and external dependencies.

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's complexity (external API with payment handling), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, payment mechanism, and parameter semantics. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or rate limits.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'endpoint' as 'API path' with examples (e.g., '/api/v1/fees'), and 'params' as 'Optional query parameters as key=value pairs separated by &.' This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or provide more examples for complex cases.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query a remote Satoshi API instance, auto-paying with Lightning if needed.' It specifies the verb ('query') and resource ('remote Satoshi API instance'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on external API interaction rather than local blockchain analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative query tools (though none are listed among siblings).

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?

The description provides some usage context: 'Requires SATOSHI_API_URL environment variable' and 'Supports L402 micropayments,' which implies prerequisites and payment handling. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for remote vs. local data) or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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