get_supportAlways free to use. Only configured payment methods are listed. An empty methods array means payments are not enabled. Check this before creating an invoice. Public; no authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| methods | Yes | ||
| required | Yes | ||
| available | Yes | ||
| endpoints | Yes | ||
| priority_policy | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: no auth required, always free, only configured methods are returned, and an empty array means payments are disabled.
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?
Four short sentences, no filler, with the key edge-case semantics (empty array) surfaced early. Slightly choppy sequencing, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description helpfully explains the one ambiguous return condition (empty array). Auth and cost posture are also covered, leaving little an agent needs that is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the 4 baseline applies. The schema has no properties and the description correctly stays silent on inputs.
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 title plus the line about 'configured payment methods' being listed and an empty 'methods array' make clear this tool returns the available support/payment methods. However, the description never states the verb+resource explicitly, and it does not distinguish itself from funding-related siblings like get_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?
It gives an explicit precondition — 'Check this before creating an invoice' — which tells the agent when to call it. That is actionable context, though it names no alternative sibling and no exclusion case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.