What Wiremi is and is not, plus its regulatory registrations. Honest about being ROSCA-first (not primarily remittance), not reporting to bureaus yet, and not operating US payment rails. No personal data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden. It explicitly discloses key behavioral traits: ROSCA-first (not remittance), no credit bureau reporting, no US payment rails, and no personal data collection. This is transparent and honest.
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?
Three concise sentences: first defines purpose, second lists key facts and limitations, third notes privacy. Front-loaded and efficient with no redundant information.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, scope, disclaimers, and privacy, providing all necessary context for an informational 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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds significant meaning by explaining what information the tool returns, compensating for the lack of schema details and enriching the tool's semantic value.
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: explaining 'what Wiremi is and is not, plus its regulatory registrations.' It specifies scope (ROSCA-first, not remittance, etc.) and naturally distinguishes from siblings like ask_wiremi or rosca-specific tools.
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 implicitly guides usage by detailing what the tool covers (Wiremi's nature, registrations, limitations). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context and sibling names make the tool's specific focus clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of ROSCAs or Wiremi, with minimal overlap. The catch-all 'ask_wiremi' is explicitly designed for queries that don't fit other tools, preventing ambiguity.
All tool names follow snake_case and a descriptive style, often starting with 'what', 'how', or 'rosca_'. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
10 tools is an appropriate count for the server's educational/marketing purpose, covering definitions, mechanics, comparisons, calculations, and company info without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set comprehensively covers the domain of ROSCAs and Wiremi: from basic concepts, mechanics, and comparisons to research and operational details. No obvious gaps for an educational marketing server.