list_payram_docsLists the available Payram doc ids relative to docs/payram-docs-live. Optionally scope by a prefix such as "features".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| docs | Yes | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| prefix | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool returns doc IDs (not file contents) and specifies the directory, implying a read-only listing operation. It does not cover edge cases like authentication or ordering, but for a simple list this is adequate.
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?
Two concise sentences, directly stated with no filler. The first sentence defines the purpose, the second explains the optional parameter. Well-structured and 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 listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the directory, the result type (doc IDs), and the scoping mechanism. The output schema covers return details, so no further explanation is needed.
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 schema has one optional parameter, 'prefix', with no description. The description adds meaning by explaining it scopes the listing and gives an example ('features'). This goes beyond the bare schema and compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
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 lists available Payram doc IDs from a specific directory (docs/payram-docs-live). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_payram_doc_by_id, which fetch a specific document's content.
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 context on when to use this tool (to list doc IDs) and mentions optional prefix scoping, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The use case is implied rather than explicitly guided.
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.