List saved merchants and recipients to review or select counterparties when managing financial transactions.
Показать сохранённых контрагентов и получателей.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_merchants"
}
}| 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 full disclosure burden, and it offers almost none: no statement that the call is read-only, no ordering, pagination, or archiving behaviour, and no indication of whether deleted or hidden merchants appear. 'Сохранённых' (saved) is the only hint, implying persisted records rather than a live sync, which is too thin for a zero-annotation tool.
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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the lone sentence is under-loaded rather than over-loaded.
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 simple no-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description is the only place that could tell the agent what a returned merchant looks like (id, name, archived flag), and it does not. It is minimally sufficient to select the tool, not to use the results confidently.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies an unfiltered full listing, which is consistent with the empty input schema.
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 states a concrete verb ('Показать' / show) and an object ('сохранённых контрагентов и получателей' — saved counterparties and payees), so the gist is recoverable. However, it never uses the term 'merchant' that the tool name and its create_merchant/update_merchant siblings use, leaving the agent to infer that 'контрагенты' == merchants, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from list_companies or get_zenmoney_entities.
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 create_merchant, update_merchant, list_companies, or get_zenmoney_entities, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.