SpherePay MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the return content (event details including type, payload, webhook records) but doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds valuable return detail. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks context about when to use it or behavioral constraints, making it just barely sufficient.

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%, but the description compensates well by explaining the single parameter's purpose: 'by ID' clarifies that event_id is used to identify a specific event. Since there's only one parameter and the description gives it meaning, this exceeds the baseline despite low schema coverage.

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: 'Retrieve a SpherePay event by ID' specifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (SpherePay event). It distinguishes from list-style siblings by focusing on a single event, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools like get_transfer or get_wallet.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied to be for retrieving specific events (not listing), there's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or when to choose other tools like list_transfers for broader queries.

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