Get Cryptbrew invoicing fees: 1% payment fee (min 10 sats) and free iOS app. Excludes Lock fees; use cryptbrew_lock_info for Lock.
Cryptbrew invoicing fees only: payment fee (1% min 10 sats) and free iOS app. Not CryptBrew Lock — use cryptbrew_lock_info for Lock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does so by revealing the actual payload (fee rate, minimum, free iOS app) rather than just naming the topic. It is a static informational lookup with no implied mutation, so the risk surface is minimal; only return-shape details are absent.
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?
Two short sentences, zero padding. The subject is front-loaded ('Cryptbrew invoicing fees only') and the disambiguation clause follows immediately.
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?
For a no-param, no-output-schema info tool, the description supplies the substantive answer content (the fee schedule) while disambiguating from Lock. An agent has enough to call it and describe the result; nothing essential is missing, though it says nothing about the fuller structure of the pricing response.
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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless informational call and adds no misleading parameter expectations.
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?
States a precise scope: 'Cryptbrew invoicing fees only', and immediately enumerates the content (payment fee 1% min 10 sats, free iOS app). It also names the sibling it is NOT (CryptBrew Lock), so an agent can distinguish it from cryptbrew_lock_info without inspecting schemas.
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 an explicit when-not and the correct alternative: 'Not CryptBrew Lock — use cryptbrew_lock_info for Lock.' That routes the agent away from the most likely confusion. It does not, however, differentiate from the other six informational siblings (faq, about, how_it_works), so it falls short of full 5-level coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.