Lightning Wallet MCP

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 adds the authentication requirement ('REQUIRES AGENT KEY'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields).

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—two short sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds critical context (authentication requirement), making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers authentication and purpose but lacks details on output format or behavioral constraints (e.g., error handling). For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools.

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 action ('List all registered webhooks') and the resource ('for the current agent'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_webhook' or 'test_webhook' beyond the basic action, 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 includes an explicit prerequisite ('REQUIRES AGENT KEY'), which provides clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_webhook' (if existed) or other listing tools, nor does it mention exclusions.

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