list_notificationsPOST /api/notifications. Poll this when a Visa payment asks for 3-D Secure. Agents keep payload.code (never SMS, never Telegram). category=codes for 3-D Secure OTP. Also delivered on webhook field otp if callback_url is set, and optional email. Space catalog calls ~1s apart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| prev_id | No | ||
| prev_ts | No | ||
| category | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: payload.code is the source of truth, SMS/Telegram must not be used, category=codes is for OTP, and calls should be spaced ~1s apart. This goes well beyond the 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 dense, with useful front-loaded information about the endpoint and use case. However, the terse fragments and unexplained term 'Space catalog' make it slightly less structured than ideal.
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?
It covers the core 3-D Secure polling scenario well, including code handling, category filter, and rate spacing. But without an output schema, it still lacks response shape details, pagination semantics for prev_id/prev_ts, and full category meanings, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to call 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains category=codes but says nothing about limit, prev_id, prev_ts, or what the other category values (all, support, tx) mean. Most parameter semantics remain undocumented.
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 names a specific resource (notifications), a specific action (poll), and a concrete triggering scenario (Visa 3-D Secure). It also gives the exact endpoint and differentiates this tool from alternative delivery channels like webhook and email.
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?
It explicitly says when to poll (when Visa payment asks for 3-D Secure) and provides operational rules: keep payload.code, never SMS/Telegram, use category=codes, and space calls ~1s apart. It mentions webhook/email alternatives but does not fully specify when to prefer them over polling.
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 distinct resource-action pairs: card creation, card detail, top-up, eSIM/gift purchase, KYT initiation, KYT polling, and history are all separated. The KYT family is the main risk area, but the descriptions clearly distinguish check, get, checks, and quote.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun snake_case, e.g., list_cards, purchase_gift, topup_card, get_balance. The KYT group is inconsistent—kyt_check, kyt_check_get, kyt_checks, kyt_quote—and set_webhook/rotate_hmac break the pattern slightly, but the overall set remains predictable.
19 tools is above the typical 3-15 sweet spot, but the count is justified by the range of spend rails and supporting operations: cards, eSIM, gift cards, KYT screening, notifications, and webhook management. No tool feels truly redundant, though the KYT cluster adds some bulk.
Core purchase and card workflows are covered: create, topup, details, list, and buy operations exist for cards/eSIM/gifts, plus deposit and KYT screening. However, there is no transaction/spend history, no card freeze or block action, and no explicit purchase status/refund flow, which are notable gaps for a spend-focused server.