get_external_funding_instructionsRead the exact Base Sepolia test-USDC transfer and claim instructions for an owned wallet. This does not move or credit value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| walletId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'does not move or credit value' does not add much beyond them. It does add useful context about the specific asset chain (Base Sepolia) and the owned-wallet restriction, but it does not disclose return format, errors, or other behavioral nuances.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Read the exact...'), and the clarifying non-mutating statement is appended without repetition or unnecessary detail.
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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the exact content of what will be returned (transfer and claim instructions) and notes the non-mutating nature. It could be slightly richer about the output format or prerequisites, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, it is reasonably complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter, walletId, has no schema-level description. The tool description mentions 'owned wallet,' which implies walletId identifies that wallet, but it does not explain the expected format, ownership validation, or relationship to other wallet-related tools. This under-compensates for the low 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource: 'the exact Base Sepolia test-USDC transfer and claim instructions for an owned wallet.' It clearly distinguishes itself from value-moving actions like claim or transfer by adding 'This does not move or credit value.' This differentiates it from siblings such as claim_external_deposit and request_testnet_funding.
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 clear context for when to use it: when an agent needs the exact Base Sepolia test-USDC instructions for an owned wallet. It also implies a non-mutating read scenario via 'This does not move or credit value,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use 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.
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.