hostinger-api-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read-only operation ('Retrieve', 'view'), which is clear. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description adds some context about the tool's role in the ordering process but lacks detailed operational transparency.

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 well-structured and concise, with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, providing an alternative for adding payment methods, and giving usage guidance. There is no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with other tools. For a read-only tool with no parameters, this is minimally viable but could be more informative.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 available payment methods that can be used for placing new orders.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('available payment methods'), and the context ('for placing new orders') is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like billing_deletePaymentMethodV1 or billing_setDefaultPaymentMethodV1, which prevents a perfect score.

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 usage context: 'Use this endpoint to view available payment options before creating orders.' It also mentions an alternative action ('If you want to add new payment method, please use [hPanel]...'), which helps guide when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to other billing tools like billing_getCatalogItemListV1 or billing_getSubscriptionListV1, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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