SpherePay MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the multi-step flow and mentions that it 'generates face verification link and submits' and 'Returns progress with next steps', which adds useful context about the tool's behavior beyond basic function. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what 'submits' entails.

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 three sentences that clearly outline the tool's purpose, two-step usage pattern, and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description does a reasonably complete job. It explains the multi-step verification flow, parameter purposes, and mentions return behavior. The output schema will handle return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on usage context. However, for a verification tool with security implications, more behavioral details 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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds significant value by explaining the purpose of phone_number ('to send OTP') and otp_code ('to verify'), and implies customer_id is required for the flow. However, it doesn't explain the nullability of phone_number and otp_code or provide format requirements for any parameters.

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 as 'Run customer verification flow' with specific steps involving OTP sending and verification, then face verification link generation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_customer' or 'onboard_customer' by focusing on verification rather than retrieval or creation. However, it doesn't explicitly name the resource being verified beyond 'customer'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by outlining a two-step process: first with phone_number to send OTP, then with otp_code to verify. It implicitly suggests this is for verification flows rather than other customer operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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