get_capabilities

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the response contains (each capability with status, market variance, and caveats), which is genuine behavioral value, but it says nothing about read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or result size — acceptable for a zero-param getter, but not rich.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource stated first and the return contents in a compact parenthetical. The enumerated capability list is slightly dense but each element adds scope information rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return value; it does so at a summary level (status, market variance, caveats). For a simple parameterless capability listing, that is close to sufficient, though the shape of the returned structure remains unspecified.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to document and no coverage gap to compensate for; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool 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 gives a clear resource — the platform's capabilities — and even enumerates the domains covered (collect, disburse, settle, escrow, subscriptions, FX). It is distinguishable from action siblings like create_escrow, though it overlaps conceptually with get_use_cases and does not explicitly say how it differs.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many sibling discovery tools (get_use_cases, get_supported_countries, get_payment_networks). The only implicit signal is the broad 'and the rest' framing, which hints at a catalog overview but names no alternative or condition.

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