Show Local SAP Payments Profile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. However, it adds context about the tool's role in the sap_payments bridge for x402 paid/write calls and clarifies that keypair bytes are never returned, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key guidance. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, usage guidance, and a warning. No redundancy or fluff.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description sufficiently explains the tool's context (sap_payments bridge, x402 calls), what it returns (specific fields), and how to choose it over a sibling. For a simple read tool, this is complete.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter info, but it does list what the profile contains (caller wallet, signer, etc.), aiding understanding of what the tool provides without parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Return' and resource 'local SAP MCP profile', and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool sap_profile_current by noting it is the local version. The description also lists specific use cases (caller wallet, signer, active profile, local payment readiness), making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Directly advises when to use this tool: 'Use this instead of the remote sap_profile_current when checking...' This provides explicit usage guidance and names the alternative. Additionally, it warns about what not to expect ('Never returns keypair bytes').

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.