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 mentions pagination and optional filtering, which adds some context, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotations, 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 extremely concise—two short sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List SpherePay wallets with pagination') and efficiently adds the optional filter detail. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and filtering but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, or integration with siblings. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but overall, the description is adequate yet has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema: it clarifies that 'customer_id' is an optional filter, which the schema already indicates via 'anyOf' with null default. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no descriptions for parameters, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining 'page' or 'limit' (e.g., default values or usage). It partially addresses one parameter, meeting the baseline for low coverage without full compensation.

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 ('List') and resource ('SpherePay wallets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_wallet' by indicating it returns multiple items with pagination. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools (e.g., 'list_customers'), leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 when to use this tool by mentioning optional filtering by customer_id, suggesting it's for retrieving wallets, possibly for a specific customer. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'get_wallet' (for a single wallet) or other list tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context partially implied.

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