list_currenciesLists every blockchain currency PayRam supports on this node (chain code, network, currency code). Public endpoint — works with only PAYRAM_BASE_URL set, no API key or JWT required. Use this to discover valid blockchainCode/currencyCode values before creating payments or payouts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| currencies | Yes |
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 clearly states this is a public endpoint requiring no API key or JWT, and that it operates per node. It also implicitly signals a read-only operation by saying 'Lists,' which is appropriate for the description.
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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second covers auth and usage. Every word contributes value, and it is perfectly front-loaded.
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 simple 0-parameter list endpoint with an output schema, the description covers all essentials: purpose, auth requirements, usage, and output contents. It is self-contained and leaves no obvious gaps 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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about what the response will contain (chain code, network, currency code), which is helpful even though not strictly about input parameters. No further param explanation is needed.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists every blockchain currency PayRam supports on this node,' and explicitly names the output fields (chain code, network, currency code). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_platforms or list_recipients.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to discover valid blockchainCode/currencyCode values before creating payments or payouts.' It also states the access requirement (only PAYRAM_BASE_URL needed), which helps the agent decide when to call this tool.
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.
Many tools have distinct targets, but there is notable overlap in diagnostics (check_node_sync, check_payment_readiness, payram_doctor, test_payram_connection) and a large cluster of snippet generators for different languages that could be confused. The descriptions help, but several tools appear to serve the same underlying purpose.
Snake_case is used consistently, but verb prefixes vary unpredictably: check_, generate_, get_, list_, lookup_, search_, snippet_, test_, restart_, etc. Similar actions use different verbs (lookup_payment vs search_payments vs get_payment_summary; generate_payment_route_snippet vs snippet_express_payment_route), making the naming pattern less predictable.
With 52 tools, the set is significantly over-scoped for a developer assistance server. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., a single snippet generator with language parameters, or unified health diagnostics), and the count introduces unnecessary complexity for agents.
The surface covers payments (create, lookup, search, summary), diagnostics, docs, and many integration snippets, but lacks direct payout creation (only snippet generators), no refund or wallet creation. These are notable gaps for a payments platform server, though the snippet tools and diagnostics mitigate some dead ends.