Maximum Sats MCP

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. Provides excellent methodological transparency listing the 5 specific topology signals used (Common Neighbors, Adamic-Adar, etc.), but misses operational behaviors: the payment/freemium model implied by the payment_hash parameter, rate limits, and what the prediction output format looks like (probability score, range, confidence).

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states purpose, second discloses methodology. No redundancy, front-loaded with the prediction task, and every word earns its place including the specific algorithm inventory.

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?

Lacks output description (important since no output schema exists) - should specify if returns probability 0-1, confidence score, or structured analysis. Also omits payment tier behavior despite payment_hash parameter suggesting rate limiting. However, the 5-signal methodology disclosure provides substantial context for an ML/statistical tool.

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 100% ('Source Nostr pubkey in hex', 'Target Nostr pubkey in hex', 'Payment hash if free tier exhausted'), so baseline 3 applies. Description adds no parameter-specific context, but schema is self-documenting. The mention of 'Nostr pubkeys' in the description aligns with but doesn't expand on the schema.

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?

Clear specific verb 'Predict' with explicit resource 'how likely two Nostr pubkeys are to connect'. Distinguishes from siblings like wot_trust_path (which finds actual paths) and wot_score (which scores individual nodes) by specifying this is for probabilistic link prediction between specific pairs.

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?

Implies usage context through the mention of '5 topology signals' suggesting algorithmic link prediction, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs wot_trust_path or wot_anomalies). No mention of prerequisites like payment requirements.

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