Show the pingwa account's plan, remaining monthly quota, and whether the free 24h WhatsApp reply window is currently open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation ('Show'), but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or list any authentication or rate limit considerations. For a simple query tool this is adequate but not exemplary.
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?
Single sentence front-loads the action and specifies outputs. No wasted words; every phrase 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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an existing output schema. The description adequately explains what the tool returns. No additional context is necessary.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter details but none 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 clearly states the tool shows the pingwa account's plan, remaining monthly quota, and free WhatsApp reply window status. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'check_replies' which likely operates on individual messages.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given, but the purpose is straightforward. Usage is implied from the description, but the description does not explicitly compare to siblings 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.
Tools are mostly distinct: ask (blocking question), check_replies (retrieve messages), notify (send notification), check_status (account info), upgrade (plan management). There is some overlap between ask and check_replies, but descriptions clarify their different purposes.
All tool names are single lowercase verbs, following a consistent verb-only naming pattern. No mixing of conventions.
Five tools is appropriate for the server's purpose of WhatsApp interaction, covering core actions without being excessive or too sparse.
The tool set covers key operations: asking questions, retrieving replies, sending notifications, checking status, and upgrading. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no separate send image tool), but the core workflow is supported.