Current policy limits: per-tx/daily/monthly caps (USDC smallest units). Agent accounts also include agent cap tier limits, maxWallets, and credential access expiry.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_policy_limits"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description does most of the behavioral disclosure by naming the returned fields and clarifying that caps are in USDC smallest units. It also adds useful agent-account-specific context such as maxWallets and credential access expiry. However, it does not state permissions, read-only behavior, or account-scoping assumptions.
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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds only relevant qualifiers. Every clause contributes information about what the returned limits include.
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 no-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description is mostly complete because it enumerates the main returned limit categories and units. It could still be clearer about the response shape or whether values are effective limits versus configured policy, but the essential content is present.
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 there is no parameter semantics burden. The schema is likewise empty, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.
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 that the tool returns current policy limits, with specific components such as per-transaction, daily, and monthly caps plus agent-specific limits. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like get_wallet_loss_cap or get_usage_balance, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The implied use is checking policy limits, but an agent must infer that from the name and description alone.
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.