get_discovery_manifestRead the signed manifest connecting Wever Pay identities, endpoints, protocols, payment networks, and verification instructions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' is consistent with that. The description adds useful content context about the manifest's contents but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, response format, or any side effects.
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 entire description is one sentence and front-loads the primary action ('Read the signed manifest'). Every phrase earns its place by identifying the resource and its scope without redundant 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-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what will be obtained and the kind of data the manifest connects. No output schema exists, but the enumeration of manifest contents effectively covers what the agent should expect.
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 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter details to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description is sufficient because no invocation arguments are 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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('the signed manifest') and enumerates what it contains. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_connection_bundle or get_network_metrics because the 'discovery manifest' is a unique, well-defined resource.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its many siblings. The description explains what the manifest is but never states conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be selected.
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.
The set has multiple near-synonymous read and recovery surfaces, e.g. get_commerce_purchase_status vs get_purchase_recovery_status vs recover_authorized_purchase vs recover_commerce_purchase, and discover_assurance_services vs discover_commerce_index vs get_discovery_manifest vs search_verified_offers. Long descriptions are required to tell them apart, so misselection is likely.
All names follow a readable snake_case verb_noun pattern, with get_, request_, create_, verify_, and recover_ prefixes used consistently. The main deviation is read operations split across get_/discover_/inspect_/search_/list_, which is still understandable but not perfectly uniform.
At 50 tools this is in the extreme-mismatch band for an MCP server. Even with a broad payment/commerce/discovery domain, dozens of get/status/recovery tools could be consolidated or parameterized.
The toolset covers the major lifecycles: registration, wallet, funding, payment, commerce offer/purchase/fulfillment/refund, mandates, and verification. Minor gaps such as no service unregister/update, no payment-request cancellation, and no wallet deletion are workable but not fatal.