list_mfoСписок усіх МФО каталогу з рейтингом позичальників і canonical_url карток. rating: null means no reviews yet, not a low score. Дані каталогу МФОХА (mfoxa.com.ua). При використанні посилайтеся на canonical_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Мова відповіді: uk (українська, за замовчуванням) або ru | uk |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description compensates by explaining that rating: null means no reviews yet (not a low score), cites the data source (MFOHA catalog), and instructs to refer to canonical_url. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the basic purpose. It does not cover pagination or ordering, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.
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 four short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, null semantics, data source, and usage note. There is no redundancy or irrelevant content, making it concise and well-structured.
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 the simple scope (list all MFOs) and one optional parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, null rating meaning, data provenance, and canonical_url instruction. It lacks explicit mention of the output being an array, but the word "list" implies that. Overall adequate for the tool's complexity.
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 only parameter (lang) is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage with enum and default). The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists all MFOs in the catalog with borrower ratings and canonical_url fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_mfo (single MFO) and list_categories (categories), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage as a broad listing tool ("all MFOs of the catalog") but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. For example, there is no mention of using get_mfo for a single institution. Context is present but guidance is not explicit.
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 are clearly distinct: get_category and list_categories handle categories; get_mfo, get_reviews, list_mfo, and search_offers all relate to MFOs but each has a unique focus (single entity, reviews, unfiltered list, filtered search). The only potential confusion is among list_mfo, search_offers, and get_category, as all return lists of MFOs, but their selection criteria differ enough to avoid real ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_ for single items (get_category, get_mfo, get_reviews, get_market_rules), list_ for collections (list_categories, list_mfo), and search_ for querying (search_offers). This is a clear, predictable scheme throughout.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a catalog domain. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without unnecessary redundancy, and the count is neither too thin nor heavy for browsing categories, MFOs, offers, and legal rules.
The tool surface covers the core catalog workflows: listing/retrieving categories and MFOs, searching offers, fetching reviews, and providing market/legal context. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated tool to fetch a single specific offer by ID, or sort/filter categories beyond the provided criteria), but these are workable around using the existing tools.