Lists supported fiat on-ramp providers and their configuration status, helping you identify available payment options.
List fiat on-ramp providers (MoonPay, Transak, Ramp, Banxa, Wert, Stripe) with configured status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only list operation and mentions that configured status is part of the result, but it does not explain what status values look like, whether any filtering applies, or the response envelope. It is not misleading, but transparency is basic.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and resource, then supplies concrete provider examples and the status detail. There is no filler or repetition, and every phrase earns its place.
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 zero-parameter list operation, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the available providers, and the status output. It could add how the returned provider values relate to gdmx_create_checkout or define allowed statuses, but those are enhancements rather than blockers.
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 the schema covers 100% of them, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the no-parameter baseline. The description correctly introduces no parameter details because none 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource ('fiat on-ramp providers'), naming six concrete providers and noting that status is included. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings such as gdmx_create_checkout, which is clearly an action-oriented counterpart.
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 given about when to call this tool versus gdmx_create_checkout or the other siblings. The only clue is the word 'List', which is implicit; an agent must infer that this is a lookup step rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.