SpherePay MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves wallet details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or response format beyond mentioning 'address and network'. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and parameter, the second outlines the return details. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and output scope ('address and network'), but lacks behavioral details like error cases or auth needs, which are more critical due to the absence 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the 'wallet_id' parameter, adding semantic context that it's an identifier for retrieval. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., string length, pattern) or provide examples, leaving the parameter only partially clarified beyond the schema's type definition.

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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'SpherePay wallet by ID', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_wallets' by specifying retrieval of a single wallet by ID rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_offloader_wallet' or 'get_virtual_account', which might retrieve different wallet types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid wallet ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_wallets' for bulk retrieval or 'get_offloader_wallet' for specific wallet types. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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