list_recipientsLists saved withdrawal recipients (payout beneficiaries). Use this to find a recipient ID for the 3-step payout flow, or to check whether a beneficiary is already OTP-verified (status "active") before creating a payout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| recipients | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, but the description reveals that this is a read-only listing operation ('Lists') and gives insight into the output by referencing the status field ('active'). It doesn't discuss potential errors or authentication, but the simplicity of the tool and presence of an output schema mitigate this gap.
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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides two concrete use cases. No filler, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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 listing tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the essentials: what it lists, why you'd use it, and what status information is available. The reference to the payout flow and OTP verification completes the contextual picture.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds contextual value by explaining the purpose and usage without needing to elaborate on parameter syntax.
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 function: 'Lists saved withdrawal recipients (payout beneficiaries).' It names a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'recipient ID' and 'OTP-verified' distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_currencies or list_platforms.
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?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this to find a recipient ID for the 3-step payout flow, or to check whether a beneficiary is already OTP-verified.' This tells the user exactly when to invoke the tool, and the context makes clear it's the primary (and only) recipient-list 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.