ifood_list_payment_methodsList saved iFood wallet payment methods with redacted last-four digits. Does not charge. Output as summary, structured, or raw data in markdown or JSON.
Saved wallet methods. Last-four redacted. Does not charge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| privacy_mode | No | ||
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds complementary behavioral details: 'Last-four redacted' discloses data sanitization, and 'Does not charge' clarifies there is no external financial side effect. These go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
The description is extremely compact: three short fragments, each adding a distinct piece of information — scope, privacy behavior, and safety. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most identifying detail ('Saved wallet methods') 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?
For a simple read-only tool with zero required parameters, the description is mostly adequate: it names the resource, implies the list output through 'Saved wallet methods', and covers side effects and privacy. However, it does not describe the optional privacy_mode or response_format parameters, and since there is no output schema, a bit more guidance about expected output behavior would help.
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 0%, and the description provides no help with privacy_mode or response_format. The parameter names and enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to clarify how privacy_mode affects the output or how response_format changes the result.
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 identifies the resource clearly as 'Saved wallet methods', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ifood_merchant_payment_methods. However, the action 'list' is only supplied by the title, not by the description itself, and the phrasing is a noun fragment rather than a specific verb+resource statement.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'saved wallet methods' implies the user's wallet rather than merchant methods, but it never states this distinction or mentions the nearby ifood_merchant_payment_methods tool, leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.