SpherePay MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves transfer details including status, which is basic behavioral information. However, it lacks details about permissions needed, error handling (e.g., what happens if ID is invalid), rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'retrieve' implies read-only). For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal disclosure.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and parameter, the second specifies return details. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose and key return aspect (status). For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate, though more behavioral context would improve it given the lack of annotations.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying that 'transfer_id' is used to retrieve a transfer, which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type information. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., ID structure) or examples. With low schema coverage, this partially compensates but not fully.

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 transfer by ID' specifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (SpherePay transfer). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_transfers' (which returns multiple transfers) by focusing on a single transfer by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_event' or 'get_webhook' which also retrieve single items by ID.

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 implies usage context: use this to get details of a specific transfer when you have its ID. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives (e.g., use 'list_transfers' for multiple transfers). The presence of sibling tools like 'list_transfers' and 'get_event' suggests some implied differentiation, but no explicit guidance is given.

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