list_app_entry_pointsReturn canonical navigation-only app entry points, their App Intent names, source and public-release status, web fallbacks, and safety effects. These links only open visible UI and never inspect a wallet, bypass app lock, sign, broadcast, import, export, or delete anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly spells out what the tool does not do: inspect a wallet, bypass app lock, sign, broadcast, import, export, or delete anything. It also adds that links only open visible UI, which is valuable behavioral context not present in 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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a concise safety clarification. 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?
Given there are no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what will be returned, what the tool is safe to do, and what it will never do, leaving no important gap for invocation or selection.
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, so the empty input schema is fully complete. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriately strong.
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, 'Return', and a specific resource, 'canonical navigation-only app entry points', and lists the exact fields returned. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, especially get_app_screen, by emphasizing 'navigation-only' and 'entry points'.
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 this tool: when the agent needs canonical, navigation-only app entry points with metadata and safety guarantees. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to avoid obvious misuse.
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.
Most tools target distinct resource types (product, security, features, articles, networks, release, screens, entry points), with get_/list_ pairs clearly separating single-item retrieval from collection listing. The only mild ambiguity is between get_app_screen and list_app_entry_points, since both describe UI navigation surfaces, though their descriptions keep screen semantics vs entry-point catalogs separate.
The dominant get_<singular> and list_<plural> pattern is clear and predictable for 10 of 12 tools. 'search' and 'fetch' break the noun-oriented pattern and are less descriptive of their distinct roles, but they are common enough verbs that the overall set remains readable.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a wallet knowledge base: each get tool corresponds to a distinct knowledge category and list tools cover discoverability. No tool feels redundant, and the count is squarely in the appropriate range.
The surface covers the major knowledge domains an agent needs: product identity, security model, features, articles, supported networks, release info, app screens, and entry points, plus search/fetch for open-ended lookup. Minor asymmetries exist (e.g., get_app_screen has no listing counterpart, and list_app_entry_points has no single-item get), but these are workable through search.