Retrieve PayGate transaction routing rules to audit or verify transaction routing paths. Use this read-only endpoint for routing configuration checks.
List routing rules (rate limit: 100 requests per 1m) Read-only (GET /paygate/transactions/routing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses useful behavioral traits: the operation is read-only, uses GET, and is rate-limited to 100 requests per minute. It does not cover pagination or return format, but this is minor for a parameterless list endpoint.
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 one compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and rate-limit/read-only constraints appended efficiently. No wasted words.
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 simple zero-parameter GET endpoint, the description provides the key invocation details: resource, HTTP method, rate limit, and safety profile. It lacks explicit alternatives or return-value expectations, but those are not essential for calling this tool correctly.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because no parameters exist.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('routing rules'), and the HTTP endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling list tools, none of which mention routing.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The rate limit and read-only note are operational constraints, not usage context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.