Return legacy intent-only contribution options. No real payment, authorization, reserve or settlement adapter is enabled.
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": "donation_options"
}
}| 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 at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does contribute one genuinely important behavioral fact: no payment, authorization, reserve, or settlement adapter is enabled, so calling it cannot move money. It still omits whether the tool is strictly read-only, whether it has side effects, and what it returns, which are meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core scoping statement comes first. The second sentence is slightly opaque but is short and functionally necessary as a safety disclaimer.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description should hint at what comes back (a list of options with which fields?) since nothing structured covers return values. Instead it only defines the negative behavior, leaving the agent to discover the response shape by trial.
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 schema is an empty object with zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
"Return legacy intent-only contribution options" gives a verb (return) and a resource (contribution/donation options), and it is distinguishable from siblings like list_offers or get_opportunities by the donation-specific subject. However, "legacy" and "intent-only" are undefined jargon that leave the agent guessing what these options actually are, so the purpose lands as vague rather than precise.
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 never says when an agent should call this, nor does it name an alternative for the case where a real payment path is needed. Even the obvious follow-up question—which sibling handles actual settlement if this one is only intent—is left to inference.
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.