Retrieve all supported markets, their live status, currencies, and mobile-money provider codes. Use it to check where Ultraner can process payments without an API key.
Every market Ultraner knows about, whether it is live, its currency, and the provider code to send for each mobile-money network there. Needs no API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a keyless, read-only discovery call ('Needs no API key'), which tells an agent it can call it before authenticating. Beyond that, it says nothing about rate limits, caching, or freshness of the 'live' status.
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?
Two compact sentences with the content list front-loaded and the auth fact appended. The first sentence is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is wasted.
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 reference tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (market, live status, currency, provider code), which largely substitutes for the missing output schema. Only edge behaviors like pagination or data freshness are unaddressed.
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 zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface the description could meaningfully elaborate on.
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 the resource (markets/countries) and enumerates the exact fields returned: live status, currency, and provider code per mobile-money network. It's clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_supported_currencies or get_payment_networks, whose scopes overlap with the fields mentioned.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion relative to siblings such as get_supported_currencies or get_corridors. The note 'Needs no API key' is an invocation-relevant prerequisite, which gives some usable context, but usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.