Lightning Wallet 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'REQUIRES AGENT KEY,' which adds context about authentication needs, but does not describe other behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just one sentence that efficiently states the purpose and prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose and authentication need, but without annotations or an output schema, it fails to describe behavioral aspects like response format or safety profile. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and prerequisites. A baseline score of 4 is given as it compensates for the lack of parameters by providing other relevant information.

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: 'Get the agent's Nostr public key and npub.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('Nostr public key and npub'), making the action explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'whoami' or 'get_info', which might also retrieve identity-related information, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 usage with 'REQUIRES AGENT KEY,' indicating a prerequisite for invoking this tool. This helps the agent understand when it can be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., compared to 'whoami' or 'set_nostr_identity'), so it lacks full exclusion or alternative guidance.

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