Where Wiremi operates. Lists the seven live African funding corridors, states clearly that CAD and US funding rails are NOT live yet (estimated Q3 2026), and notes North American users can download and subscribe but cannot yet fund a wallet or send money. No personal data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses behavioral aspects: it lists live corridors, explicitly states CAD/US funding is not live, notes North American user limitations, and confirms no personal data is involved, all in the absence of annotations.
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 with the first sentence front-loading the purpose. Each sentence provides unique and essential information with no waste.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: operational status, limitations, and data privacy, making it fully complete.
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?
No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the tool does, compensating for the lack of parameters.
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 states the tool lists where Wiremi operates, including specific live corridors and non-live status, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like what_is_wiremi or ask_wiremi that explain general concepts.
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 clearly implies use for checking operational status, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings.
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.