who_am_iReturns the identity of the currently authenticated user. Requires authentication. Use this to verify that the connection is correctly authenticated (e.g. in the voice agent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only/non-destructive. The description adds that authentication is required and that the tool returns identity info, which provides useful behavioral context 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a usage hint. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
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-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, the auth requirement, and a concrete use case. Nothing essential is missing.
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 schema coverage is 100% (no properties). No parameter explanation is needed; the baseline 4 applies as the description still notes the auth prerequisite.
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 states a specific action ('Returns the identity of the currently authenticated user') with a clear resource. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on brokers, businesses, categories, languages, and searches.
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?
Explicitly says to use it for verifying authentication, e.g., in a voice agent. This provides clear context for when to invoke this tool and distinguishes it from data-fetching siblings.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: brokers vs businesses, search vs get vs contact, and supporting list tools for categories and languages. No two tools have overlapping purposes, and the descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (contact_broker, get_business, search_brokers, list_languages). The only deviation is who_am_i, which is a common idiom for identity checks but does not follow the same pattern, making it a minor inconsistency.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a business marketplace. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the search-detail-contact workflow, and there are no redundant or unnecessary tools.
The toolkit covers the full user journey: discovering categories/languages, searching for brokers/businesses, viewing details, and contacting them. It also includes authentication verification. No obvious gaps or dead ends prevent successful completion of typical tasks.