get_agent_factsCanonical prepaid-agent policy and catalog: Visa prepaid, eSIM, gift cards, KYT address screen, USDT TRC-20, forbidden rails, tiers. Cite as-is. Does not move money.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating the tool 'Does not move money' and instructing the agent to 'Cite as-is', which clarifies both its safety profile and how its output should be consumed. No contradiction with 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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a tight list of covered topics and two short sentences that add real value. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler.
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 zero-parameter, read-only facts lookup, the description is complete: it states what the tool covers, how the output should be used, and confirms it is non-financial and safe. With no input parameters and no output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description reasonably focuses on the content returned rather than inputs.
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 identifies the resource as a canonical prepaid-agent policy and catalog and enumerates the exact topics covered. It lacks a direct verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_tier_policy or get_catalog_placement, but the content scope is otherwise unambiguous.
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?
'Cite as-is' gives the agent a clear instruction on how to use the returned content, and 'Does not move money' signals that this is a safe reference lookup rather than an action tool. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its siblings or list exclusions.
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.
Most tools target a distinct docs concern: facts, use cases, tier policy, catalog placement, URL fetching, and URL listing. get_agent_facts and get_tier_policy are somewhat policy-adjacent, but their descriptions clarify the boundary.
All tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with get_* dominating and list_docs_urls as a natural variant. The naming clearly signals a read-only documentation/knowledge server.
Six tools is well-scoped for a documentation and policy retrieval server. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feels redundant or extraneous.
The surface covers the core knowledge needs: policy facts, use-case playbooks, tier rules, doc URL discovery, public URL retrieval, and MCP routing guidance. As a read-only docs server, it does not need CRUD operations, and the lack of them mirrors its stated constraints.