get_round_upCheck if round-ups are active, which savings space they go to, and the multiplier applied to your account.
Shows whether round-ups are active, which savings space they go to, and the multiplier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountUid | No | Account UID. Optional: defaults to STARLING_DEFAULT_ACCOUNT_UID, the only account, or the PRIMARY account |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no auth/permission notes, no defaults, no rate limits), but nothing is left unmet either, so a minimum-viable 3 is appropriate.
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 with zero waste; the most important fact (whether round-ups are active) comes first.
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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the three returned facts (active state, destination savings space, multiplier). It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying the shape of the response or what happens when round-ups are disabled.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single accountUid parameter, including its pattern and default fallback, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the parameter, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 verb and resource ('Shows whether round-ups are active, which savings space they go to, and the multiplier'), enumerating exactly the three facts returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_savings_goal or list_spaces by resource, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs round-up status, destination space, or multiplier. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.