List all settlement currencies, their decimal places, and shared countries before constructing Ultraner payment amounts; many African currencies use whole numbers.
Every settlement currency, how many decimal places it has, and which countries share it. Read this before constructing an amount: most African currencies have no minor unit and are sent as whole numbers.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discharges that well by disclosing the returned shape (decimals per currency, shared countries) and a concrete operational rule about African currencies having no minor unit, which directly affects how the agent builds amounts. It stops short of explicitly declaring read-only/no side-effects.
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 sentences, zero waste, and front-loaded: what you get first, then the actionable constraint that motivates calling it. Every clause 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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover the return contract, and it does by naming the three fields returned. Zero-param schema removes any parameter gap. The only shortfall is the absent explicit contrast with get_supported_countries.
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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what an empty schema already communicates.
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?
States a specific resource and enumerates its content: every settlement currency, decimal places, and country sharing. However it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the adjacent get_supported_countries sibling, so an agent must infer the split from the word 'currency'.
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?
Gives clear triggering context: 'Read this before constructing an amount.' That is a usable when-to-use cue, but no exclusion or named alternative is offered, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.