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. It discloses the multi-step behavior ('Creates the representative, generates a face verification link, and submits verification'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if verification fails. For a complex creation/verification tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the purpose and behavior, another listing parameters. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the parameter list to a separate section, but overall it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, multi-step behavior) and no annotations, the description provides a good foundation but has gaps. It explains the core action and parameters but doesn't cover error handling, verification outcomes, or system constraints. The existence of an output schema helps, but for a tool with this complexity and zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 clearly lists all 7 required parameters and 3 optional ones by name, adding semantic meaning about what each represents (e.g., 'customer_id (must be a business customer)'). However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., date_of_birth format, address structure) or explain parameter relationships.

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 specific action ('Create and verify a business representative') and the target resource ('for a business customer'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'onboard_customer' by specifying this is for representatives rather than customers themselves, and from 'verify_customer' by focusing on representative verification with face verification.

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 by stating it's for business customers and listing required parameters, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'onboard_customer' or 'verify_customer'. It mentions the customer must be a business customer, which provides some guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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